I'm a Rabbit without a Party.....

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
You could try what I'm doing. I'm terrified of a Romney Presidency but I refuse to vote for Obama so I'm voting for Johnson. I feel that there isn't much difference between the two or any (D)/(R). They may talk about radically different things but in action not so much. Write someone in or check to see if someone you like better is running and give them your vote.

I do feel that voting for todays GOP is a huge step backward socially but again ultimately those are just talking points. They write and pass these stupid backward laws that end up in court and overturned.

Todays Democratic party talks a good social (not socialist) game, they talk about economic equality and standing for the poor and disenfranchised, but they don't fight very hard... they talk about big bad corporations but don't stop them from filling their coffers, and then turn around and vote corporate interest.

Just out of curiosity why do you say Obama is a Marxist Socialist? A lot of Conservatives say that but I personally find Obama to be one of the best Capitalists we'ev ever had. If Obama were a Socialist (not the Marxist variety) his policies would have been more to my liking and he'd most likely not have lost my vote.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


As long as you are without a party you are less likely to be manipulated. You should be happy.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Todays Democratic party talks a good social (not socialist) game, they talk about economic equality and standing for the poor and disenfranchised, but they don't fight very hard... they talk about big bad corporations but don't stop them from filling their coffers, and then turn around and vote corporate interest.

Just out of curiosity why do you say Obama is a Marxist Socialist? A lot of Conservatives say that but I personally find Obama to be one of the best Capitalists we'ev ever had. If Obama were a Socialist (not the Marxist variety) his policies would have been more to my liking and he'd most likely not have lost my vote.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Good Afternoon, Kali...


I took some time to consider my reply to your points here because for whatever reason, I recall the decent relation I had with you when we were both in Occupy at the same time. That respect never faded...so I try to be a little circumspect when replying on things you took time for.

On your first paragraph I quoted...I agree entirely Democrats do talk a damn good game and then screw us anyway. Republicans don't bother talking such good games or try greasing everyone up first. They just screw us outright and tell us to take it and like it.

Both sides screw us though...and we certainly seem to agree there. Dems are nicer on the social program side, no doubt. Repubs are nicer on the benefits to business. Each have their strength and best times to help the nation, IMO.


On your second point.. Well. That's the big one to start wars over around the forums at times, eh? Now, Obama as a capitalist would make me laugh and get insulting with most people..because I wouldn't take them as being sincere or meaning a word of it. However, I'm confused with your position? Obama ....Capitalist?? You DO realize, he doesn't even claim this HIMSELF to any degree you'd notice or find a quote for.

Now...I know I know...ad nasuem I know...Obama didn't MAKE this situation...but Obama could have handled the aftermath of the mini-crash any way he chose to. He chose to embrace and continue the policies of the last guy and double down on it. He all but completed the purchase of GM for the federal Government (They own 26.5% as of last month for stock). He ran with the bail out and "stimulus" like it WAS his own personal idea and apparently had a grand time of it.

None of this is the actions of a capitalist and I haven't SEEN Capitalism to recognize it as such since Clinton, at least...and his was a bit of a combination with other ideals. No complaints though..I take Clinton Capitalism over Obama's Socialist mix-master any day and twice on Sunday.

The medical is also....I have to say this.. Socialist. no two ways and no debating it. These terms are defined and well outlined as official descriptions of defined systems of Government and it is what it is. I'll agree capitalist approaches to medicine led from Medicine for healing to Medicine 100% for NOTHING but profit and at the deaths of patients if that's what it took. It went haywire..and started in the 80's as the figures are SO clear to show. I have NO idea what the solution is....but "American Socialism" isn't it. Obama isn't it. Democrats?? Well... Show me a candidate of the REAL Democratic party as we've known it until 12 years ago and the start of the partisan wars in earnest...and I'll consider voting for one.

Hell.. even McCaskil is getting my vote...Party isn't the major point. Men and personal life outlook IS. Obama's is the outlook of someone fighting the system from within...and tearing it to pieces in the process. It's not working...it's killing us. it's destroying our nation.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'll have to agree with you on this one Kali. Obama's actions are Capitalist. He is taking money from everyone and giving it to the medical industrys. That is not Socialism at all. He also lent money to big business and Big banks, that did not get down to the common folk at all. The legislation passed during his rein is for business. What we have here in the USA is not pure capitalism either. Obama has not really given people money, he has given businesses money to try to fix the economy. The little he has given in tax breaks is a continuation of the Bush area. I'm sorry Wrabbit, I think her thoughts are more correct. I see no Socialism in Obama's action.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
(facepalm)

Guys.... Socialism and Capitalism are NOT negotiable and fluid terms that get defined on the fly. These are solid, defined and established terms and well understood for meaning. It's clear..and Obama fits one FAR more than the other. This isn't opinion...it's fitting action to definition in a cold and analytical way. Again..It is what it is...

We can have our opinions of facts, but we don't get to define what the facts actually are. I hate to sound so harsh...but the lack of any apparent understanding to what Socialism, Communism and Capitlism ARE is really becoming a pet peeve. Liberal....has a lot of room to define. So does Conservative. Socialist gets a book definition.


Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Hmm... lets see... 1 is a dead on fit. 3 fits fairly well...and 2 is dicey. we're still half way through the 8 year plan he has...but Fannie and Freddie didn't USED to control almost all mortgages in America. They didn't USED to represent direct Government ownership, by way of those agencies, of almost all property in the nation. They do now. Not DIRECTLY...of course. Uncle owns Fannie and Freddie in all realistic ways and terms. THEY then hold the notes OR the underwriting for them. Hence.. Uncle Obama's real estate reforms handed them the keys as much as Student Loans are ALSO now nearly 100% lock, stock a part of Uncle Sams package.

Another deeper look at the raw, plain definition of a socialist Government approach.


System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism.
Source

Socialism isn't even a BAD thing by pure definition. Northern European nations make it work quite well.....but even THEY have been quoted to say what works for a nation of millions won't work the same for a nation of HUNDREDS of millions.

So... I have never understood why people get soo touchy when Obama's economic philosophy is described as what it accurately IS for the most part. When the Federal Government is collecting resources to then decide how best they are to be assigned, used and prioritized, we live in a socialist system. When PRIVATE CITIZENS are left to do that and free markets aren't regulated to the point of ownership by the Government...we live in Capitalism.

it's been so many years since anyone has SEEN capitalism in this nation, I'm not surprised few even seem to realize what we saw from Bush and what we see from Obama is nothing remotely close to it.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
But Obamacare does not give any power or money to the people. It possibly increases the income of the medical and insurance industries by just spreading the costs over many people. Capitalism gives businesses the money, socialism mandates government(citizen) control of the industries and regulates costs. I see no government control over the industries under this Obamacare. The government just says since the reliability of the payment is getting better than there are rules. The present system of never being turned down in an emergency is socialism, I see that going away because everyone will be insured. The government pays the emergency room bills of people who go in and don't pay at the medicaid rate now. Then the hospitals sell the balance to the credit bureaus and the credit bureaus go after people for the whole bill. People pay the bill and the government pays the bill presently, sweet, where can I sign up for this job.

Obama has consistantly given businesses and banks money with stipulations. That is actually a capitalistic move. If Obama would have given every taxpayer ten grand to pay down debt, that would have been a better solution than giving the banks money. The banks would have gotten all the money but I feel it would have stimulated the economy better in 09

The government did not take ownership of any business or industry under Obama. The government got stock temporarily of the auto companies but that will be returned once the bill is paid. The government does not make any sort of decisions for GM other than to tell them to watch their money. The stimulus package on rebates for buying a new car....Where did the money go? To the auto industries, if they went belly up, all their inventory would have been sold for less than that on clearance. I can't see anything that fits the socialism class in Obama. I see Socialism in some European countries but that isn't even pure.
edit on 12-10-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
But Obamacare does not give any power or money to the people. It possibly increases the income of the medical and insurance industries by just spreading the costs over many people.


What you describe there is closer to an Oligarchy, as Russia has/had become before Putin stepped back in as the Strong Man to run the nation by force and personal management.


Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "a few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next.[citation needed]
Source(I hope Wiki works for such a base definition of terms)

It's still a far shot from Capitalism.


Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Source

What part of Capitalism is distinctly MISSING from all that? "Investments that are determined by private decision". We've had 4 years of Obama and at least 2 of Bush telling us we're too damn dumb to be trusted with our own money and taxes for the Central Government to decide all that complex stuff for us is really in our best interests. That is as far from Capitalism for a system as one can come, IMO.



Obama has consistantly given businesses and banks money with stipulations. That is actually a capitalistic move. If Obama would have given every taxpayer ten grand to pay down debt, that would have been a better solution than giving the banks money. The banks would have gotten all the money but I feel it would have stimulated the economy better in 09


To finish the definition from above....as I did for Socialism:


Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of mercantilism. It was fostered by the Reformation, which sanctioned hard work and frugality, and by the rise of industry during the Industrial Revolution, especially the English textile industry (16th–18th centuries). Unlike earlier systems, capitalism used the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than investing it in economically unproductive enterprises such as palaces or cathedrals. The strong national states of the mercantilist era provided the social conditions, such as uniform monetary systems and legal codes, necessary for the rise of capitalism. The ideology of classical capitalism was expressed in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), and Smith's free-market theories were widely adopted in the 19th century. In the 20th century the Great Depression effectively ended laissez-faire economics in most countries, but the demise of the state-run command economies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (see communism) and the adoption of some free-market principles in China left capitalism unrivaled (if not untroubled) by the beginning of the 21st century.
Source

Actually... BUSH gave the money to the banks and it was under Bush that they were flat told they'd have their CEO's replaced if they didn't take it. See Well Fargo CEO comments when they TRIED to turn down the TARP money. Media reports at the time said ALL had to take it so none would be singled out as unhealthy. Obama came in and simply continued the programs of burning the citizens to the ground so the money behind the office was taken care of.



The government did not take ownership of any business or industry under Obama.


I'm sorry...but do a bit more research on that one. General Motors was 26.5% Owned by the United States Federal Government as of reports last month on status. They absolutely DID BUY companies, banks and private concerns. They called it converting debt into preferred stock options.

On Wall street and done without Uncle Sam's authority, it's called a hostile take over. Go figure. Obama and Bush BOTH did that.

Capitalism isn't something our nation has seen in a CLEAN form for more years than most likely recall, IMO. I'd be HAPPY to give it another shot some day. It might work...if EVER given a chance.
edit on 12-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Oligarchy sounds more like what is happening. Those organizations that back a candidate get the spoils. Maybe it is not really like the exact definition of capitalism but what we have here is not capitalism either. If anything, our country is getting farther away from socialism. Unions were once big and they are falling. Laws governing safety were passed and unions original purpose was lost, which was for safety and a livable wage with benefits. Unions are a part of socialism.

All GM has to do is pay back the Gov. and their stock will belong to them. They are trying to get the loan forgiven though, making a settlement for a lot less repayment. The government should be looking after the people's investment and collect the money. Our government has no desire to be into GM. You have to remember that congress as a whole decided to give our auto companies that money. Obama didn't have that much to do with that. If GM would have failed our countries economy would have never made it. If even a few of the banks had failed, all people would have lost faith in our system and tthe SHTF would have happened three years ago, taking half the world's economies with it. I don't think the USA should have gotten into this fake economy. A bigger and stronger government was needed to stop this from happening. Maddoff should have got caught years before he did, same with the banks. We need to completely change the principles of the economies around the world away from this debt based economy, the stock values on some stock outweigh the value of company assets a hundred fold. Allowing future potential to govern stock prices is stupid if there is no historical real evidence and at least twenty five percent asset value.

I still think this administration is more capitalistic than socialist, with exception of their backing of the teachers and schools. The highest point of socialism in this country in my opinion was in the seventies.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 

You know, in sitting here and hashing it out with you a bit, it's given me a chance to think about this more than I normally would.

I suppose you're right in saying that this isn't Socialism either, strictly speaking. Oligarchy is close...but it's not quite that either. We have all the foundations of capitalism, of course, as the whole system was build atop that principle...but today doesn't see Government or even business working too hard to follow any of those principles.

So, in that sense after thinking more for our discussion here..I'm not quite sure what you'd call the Bush/Obama years for a proper term. I'll lump the two together because there is a night/day line of separation for policies between Clinton and all who came before....and Bush following 9/11 to what may be the new norm going foward now.

Bush has absolutely no excuse and I can only think of him as either a sell-out in his last 2-3 years in office...or he simply wasn't what we thought we elected at any point and his true colors simply showed at the end.

Obama, I don't necessarily blame for his outlook, I just want him elsewhere to be a leader with it. Anywhere but the U.S. would do nicely......or perhaps he WOULD have made an outstanding Secy of HUD or another agency that really NEEDS the personal/social approach above all else. He grew up with Marxist/Communist role models and they call themselves that...not me. So his life views are understandable. Bush's are..well...screw him. He became something NO ONE elected by choice, to be sure.

I dunno... Americanism? Umm.... Badism? lol... I'm at a loss as we really do have a system of sorts that defies a nice label right now.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It isn't only here, a few other countries have warped over to a similar system. Americanism would be a good term for it. A debt based society that neglects the future is a good start, both economically and environmentally. The banks didn't actually do anything evil, they just gave people what they wanted, basically they gave them the tools to dig their grave. Somehow it became the norm to borrow money at outrageous amounts, even the government did it. Protecting this has way of life has made us into a new type of society which isn't defined totally yet. Maybe in the future there will be a name for this. A country filled with deceit and lies to protect past digressions has formed this.

I think you are right, this system probably morphed before or during Clinton's administration.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well Rabbit, I got where you are a long time ago... The magical dance called an election is nothing more than a slick ad campaign ... nothing more nothing less.... Our electoral system is broken beyond repair. Just look at the gerrymandering of voting districts and tell me how this really represents democracy? The failure of our political system is obvious to those of us who watch in amazement as people cast aside their morals and beliefs for their team to score big in November. The Republican and Democratic Parties have done to this country what any foreign power could not ..... kill democracy and replace it with a puppet duopoly!

The power of the people has been diluted and we will never get it back....



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 

These are odd times and odd things we're seeing aren't they? Little of what we see can last for even the mid-term future so I guess it won't be too long for those historians to look for the right name. Our kid's will probably be the ones dealing with that when they are about middle age I'd guess.

Of course, by the time our kids are that age I'm sure the rest of us now will be living an old folks version of Logan's Run or else.
Definitely odd times.

@fnp

The logical side of me wants to agree ,...because it is clear enough and as you note it for the most part. Gerrymandering is the one I keep forgetting about for the corrupt step at the lowest grass roots level and with that? Yeah... It really is rigged in some areas of the system from the word go. I say some areas because local level measures and straight popular vote total issues into the state level are still what I believe to be worth going to vote for.

Ahh.. Gerrymandering though..Yeah.. How can I keep forgetting how a district can literally run AROUND a neighborhood or split a street based on known or projected partisan divides..and to either side depending on state or region it's being done. (sigh)

I just hope you're wrong on that last part. Economic collapse may be inevitable by math alone but I'd like to think Societal collapse need not necessarily follow. The Paul effort on steroids for 2016 is the answer.
Now to get past this one and have people pick who "Paul" is to be for the next 4 year push at getting things BACK from the corrupt. Until then.. It's a political vacation for the Bunny.


It'll be busy enough after the election and everyone's going to need their A game and energy for that more, I think. (Sits back to relax for a few weeks)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hey Wrabbit - your angst is palpable, and you wrote your rant quite well! I want to give you a big hug for not voting in the guy who thinks women have magic rape-sperm repellent inside them when they are being "legitimately" raped. So, consider yourself metaphorically and figuratively "e-hugged!" Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!! And he's not even in my state, but just the idea of him gives me the extreme willies. Hope I didn't bend your Wrabbit ears the wrong way with that, but seriously, I'm grateful. I want to tell you it will be alright, and that everything works out in the end, but obviously I can't.

I get that you think O is a socialist marxist. We don't see through the same lens on that, but I can see how incredibly frustrated you must be, given how you view your choices. I kinda agree re: The Corporate Raider, but that's just me.

Anyway. What I respect and have gathered from people on all sides of the isle and issues, is that people in general are feeling screwed. We may have 100% opposing views on how to fix it or who to blame, but the underlying sentiment is the same. I sometimes feel, with all the polarization, that we are playing right into the hands of those that want to keep on abusing all of us and sucking our opportunities and wealth away. Again - people disagree as to who "they" are that work to bring us all down, and while we're busy arguing about it, they tip toe around and pick our pockets, steal our futures and make a big stinking mess for the rest of us, who suddenly look up from our entrenched viewpoints, to clean up.

You are a very brave Wrabbit.

peace,
AB





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join