Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Civil Rights has been over turned!!

Posted 1 year ago on June 25, 2013, 10:15 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Are you ready to get in the game now?

Daily Kos first story on this

My YouTube on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZyHsCrybQM&feature=youtu.be

150 Comments

150 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Supreme Court Strikes Down part of Voting Rights Act

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19132385-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act

By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.

The ruling, a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, leaves the future of the law deeply uncertain because it will be up to a sharply divided Congress to redraw the map.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.

Under the law, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of three federal judges before they make changes. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.

The act is considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Congress has renewed it four times, most recently in 2006, with overwhelming margins in both houses. That renewal extended the law through 2031.

But the law still uses election data from 1972 to determine which states, cities and counties are covered. Some jurisdictions complained that they are being punished for the sins of many decades ago.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by three other members of the court’s more liberal wing. The case was brought by Shelby County, Ala., which urged the Supreme Court to strike down both the permission requirement itself and the formula that determines which jurisdictions are covered. The justices, particularly those on the court’s conservative wing, had expressed deep skepticism when the case was argued in February that the permission requirement is still necessary.

The wide margins of approval in Congress, Justice Antonin Scalia said at the argument, are likely the result of “perpetuation of racial entitlement” — a remark that angered some veterans of the civil rights movement.

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements,” Scalia said, “it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

And the court signaled four years ago, in a decision that narrowly rejected a challenge to the permission requirement, that it had doubts about whether at least parts of the Voting Rights Act were constitutional.

“Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that decision. “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.”

This is a breaking story. Please check back for updates.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:15 AM EDT

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A couple of belated points, first of all the Court struck down the part of the VRA that made it apply anywhere as far as the only effective potion of the law that of pre-clearance, which is gone now and will most likely not return due to gerrymandering, so the VRA is effective gone. As far as it being based on 1972 data which is what the Court mistakenly said, this being one of the most flawed decisions in Court history, but in fact the VRA is as the author correctly says uses data from 1972, but he fails to mention that it also uses data from 2006 and 1996 as well when hearings were held during re-authorization,.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"US Supreme Court quashes civil rights era voting law'' was how the following piece was headlined in the hard copy of 'The Guardian' newspaper on Wednesday, 26th June :

Strongly recommend these links and especially the two part documentary above to all those interested in the matter of US demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy and it's usurpation by Corporations and The 0.01% !!!

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Ku Klux Kourt Kills King's Dream Law, Replaces Voting Rights Act With Katherine Harris Acts

Tuesday, 25 June 2013 13:34 By Greg Palast, Truthout | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17204-ku-klux-kourt-kills-kings-dream-law-replaces-voting-rights-act-with-katherine-harris-acts

They might as well have burned a cross on Dr. King's grave. The Jim Crow majority on the Supreme Court just took away the vote of millions of Hispanic and African-American voters by wiping away Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.


I'm so angry, so distraught by this, that I've asked my foundation to release my film, Election Files, for free. This is a no-BS, no charge download of my series of investigative reports for BBC Television and RollingStone.com. Click here.

Furthermore, I'm directing the Palast Investigative Team to drop all other work for a 'round-the-clock investigation of the Theft of 2014 and 2016 elections that the Supreme Court's ruling sets in motion. Help us. Join us.


When I say "millions" of voters of color will lose their ballots, I'm not kidding. Let's add it up.

Last year, the GOP Secretary of State of Florida Ken Detzner tried to purge 180,000 Americans, mostly Hispanic Democrats, from the voter rolls. He was attempting to break Katherine Harris' record. Detzner claimed that all these brown folk were illegal "aliens." But Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act requires that 16 states with a bad history of blocking black and brown voters must "pre-clear" with the US Justice Department any messing around with voter rolls or voting rules. And so Section 4 stopped Detzner from the racist brown-out.

I'll admit there were illegal aliens on Florida voter rolls - two of them. Let me repeat that: TWO aliens - one a US Marine serving in Iraq (not yet a citizen); the other an Austrian who registered as a Republican.

We can go from state to state in Dixie and see variations of the Florida purge game.

Yet the 5-to-4 Supreme Court majority ruled, against all evidence, that, "Blatantly discriminatory evasions [of minority voting rights] are rare." As there's no more racially bent voting games played in states including Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Alaska (yes, pre-clearance goes WAY north of the Confederacy), then, the justices said, there's no more reason for pre-clearance.

Whom do they think they're fooling? The court itself, just last week, ruled that Arizona's law requiring the showing of citizenship papers was an unconstitutional attack on Hispanic voters. Well, Arizona's a Section 4 state.

You'll love this line from the Ku Klux Kourt majority. They wrote that the "coverage" of Section 4 applies to states where racially bent voting systems are now "eradicated practices."

"Eradicated?" I assume they didn't see the lines of black folk in Florida last November. That was the result of the deliberate reduction in the number of polling places and early voting hours in minority areas. Indeed, if the Justice Department, wielding Section 4, didn't block Florida from half its ballot-box trickery, Obama would have lost that state's electoral votes.

And that's really what's going on here: the problem is not that the court majority is racist. They're worse: they're Republicans.

We've had Republicans, like the great Earl Warren, who put on the robes and take off their party buttons.

But this crew, beginning with Bush v. Gore, is viciously partisan. They note that "minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." And the Republican Supremes mean to put an end to that. See "Obama" and "Florida" above.

And when they say "minority," they mean "Democrat."

Because that's the difference between 1965 and today. When the law was first enacted - based on the personal pleas of Martin Luther King - African-Americans were blocked by politicians who did not like the color of their skin.

But today, it's the color of minority voters' ballots - overwhelmingly Democratic blue - which is the issue.

In California - one of the "Old South" states that is singled out for pre-clearance - an astonishing 40 percent of voter registration forms were rejected by the Republican Secretary of State on cockamamie clerical grounds. When civil rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy and I investigated, we learned that the reject pile was overwhelmingly Chicano and Asian - and overwhelmingly Democratic.

How? Jim Crown ain't gone; he's moved into cyberspace. The new trick is lynching by laptop: removing voters, as was done in Florida and Arizona (and a dozen other states) by using poisoned databases to pick out "illegal" and "felon" and "inactive" voters - who all happen to be of the Hispanic or African-American persuasion. The GOP, for all the tears of its consultants, knows it can't rock these votes, so they block these votes.

Despite the racial stench of today's viciously antidemocratic ruling, the GOP majority knew they were handicapping the next presidential run by a good 6 million votes. (That's the calculation that RFK and I came up with for racially bent vote loss in 2004 - and the GOP will pick up at least that in the next run.)

And the court knew full well that their ruling today was the same as stuffing several hundred thousand GOP red votes into the ballot boxes for the 2014 Congressional races.

The races have not yet started, but the "Katherine count" has already begun.


It was investigative reporter Greg Palast, for The Guardian and BBC Television who uncovered Katherine Harris' purge of black voters in 2000. He is also the author of the recent New York Times bestseller, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal and Election in 9 Easy Steps. His film, Election Files, may be downloaded without charge at www.GregPalast.com.

Copyright, Truthout.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 1 year ago

Did you see that link to the secret court rule revision removing pro se rights that were established after the civil war?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Political Crossover: The Troubling Emergence of "Black Reaganism"

Tuesday, 25 June 2013 09:21 By Colin Jenkins, The Hampton Institute | Op-Ed

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17194-political-crossover-the-troubling-emergence-of-black-reaganism

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Greg Palast is a very important voice, people should read and listen to him more. Great comment!!

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

''The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. According to analysis from NBC's Pete Williams, the court upheld the Section 5 notion of preclearance -- requiring locales with history of racial discrimination to preclear any changes of their voting laws with the Department of Justice -- but struck down the map identifying which areas must be subject to preclearance. According to Williams, this means Congress could, in theory, pass a law creating a new map of locales subject to preclearance. Assuming the Court approved the map, it would go into effect. On a practical level, however, it essentially means the end of preclearance because there's virtually no chance of Congress agreeing on a new map. Therefore, given the current Congress, the effect of the ruling is to render Section 5 moot, although in theory at some point in the future it's conceivable that a new map could be drawn that would revive Section 5.''

I say that their ''game'' is rigged ! Time For A New Game !! Occupy Wall Street - because the Parasitic mthrfkrs have been 'occupying' the USA and by extension - the world, for far too long !!!

fiat justitia

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I started to bitch about the link, but what the fuck, this is no time to bicker.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Exactly & so - "Big Business & The General Population'', by Noam Chomsky :

multum in parvo ...

[-] -3 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Overly dramatic to say this is civil rights overturned. Don’t you think?

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Not sure that we can be ''overly dramatic'' about the usurpation of demoCRAZY in the 'United States of Amnesia' (Gore Vidal) and quite frankly if the shit sticks - throw it !!!

Quiescence in the face of a slow, sustained coup d'etat by Corporations, Oligarchs, Plutocrats and the Bankers has led to the situation that we are all now in and is OWS' raison d'etre !!

'Economic Rights' are integral to ''civil rights'' as all of us are so dependent on 'the economy' !

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Have you ever lived in the south?

I really don't think the English language quit capable of being dramatic enough.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Yep, I'm a southern (Texas) redneck, born and raised. Except for ten years in San Francisco many years ago I've lived in the South all my life. I stand by my statement. This did not overturn civil rights. Actually it's too soon to know if it have any effect at all.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Texas has already passed laws that were already found to be discriminatory.

[-] 0 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

Actually it's NOT too soon to know if it have any effect at all.
RALEIGH, N.C. — Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a key General Assembly leader said Tuesday.

A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it's been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices in an Alabama case, according to Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, the committee chairman. He said a bill will now be rolled out in the Senate next week.

The ruling essentially means a voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year's session probably won't have to receive advance approval by U.S. Justice Department attorneys or a federal court before such measures can be carried out.

"I guess we're safe in saying this decision was what we were expecting," Apodaca said in an interview

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled a key provision of the federal law cannot be enforced unless Congress changes rules on which areas of the country still need to be monitored.

The "preclearance" requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act covered many areas of the South, including 40 North Carolina counties, mostly in the east. That has required laws approved by the General Assembly for both statewide elections and local elections in those counties, as well as redistricting maps, to receive a formal OK. The requirement was designed to ensure that minority voters in those areas aren't worse off compared to previous law.

Apodaca said the Senate didn't want the legal headaches of having to go through preclearance if it wasn't necessary and having to determine which portions of the proposal would be subject to federal scrutiny. "So now we can go with the full bill," he added. Apodaca also said now with Tuesday's rulings he anticipated another omnibus election law bill to surface next week.

Republican lawmakers and allies say a clear majority of citizens want voter ID because it will build confidence in the election system. Democratic legislators and civil rights advocates have criticized any photo ID bill as another barrier to free voting that attempts to remediate a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Texas implemented a voter photo ID requirement today, just hours after the court decision. The question is does a voter ID requirement REALLY prevent people from voting?.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

It doesnt prevent people from voting, it identifies them. The reason for a photo ID is to prevent fraud.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Depends on the requirements to get said fraud stopping ID.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

The new Texas law requires a photo ID. You can use your drivers license if you have one. If you don't have a DL. you can get a free ID card from the license bureau. I'm not sure, but I think some other types of photo ID is also acceptable. So in worst case you would have to go the the license bureau, get your picture taken and get your card.

I suspect during election campaigns there will be volunteers taking people to get their ID's.

[-] 2 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

And if you are a 90 year old WW2 vet in a wheelchair with no photo id living on $15,000 a year - how do you get 120 miles to the license bureau
If your community traditionally votes early or uses "souls to the polls"
why should your voting be impeded?


seriously - can't you just imagine these Rs stuffing a ballot box if there was one?


Old news but true:
Operation Eagle Eye was a Republican Party voter suppression operation in the 1960s in Arizona to challenge minority voters. In the United States only citizens have ever been able to vote, and in 1964 only literate citizens could vote, so it was legal to ensure that a potential voter was literate, and a potential voter was a United States Citizen. Through the employment of literacy tests, oral demands to interpret the United States Constitution and detailed questions about a potential voter's origins and how long the potential voter had been in the United States.
Republican workers would challenge minority voters, especially those with broken English.
William Rehnquist, later chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States directed the voter harassment teams.

Operation Eagle Eye was a two-year effort, and the laws in Arizona have since made this kind of challenge illegal.

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

In your example of the 90 year old WWII vet. I personally would take him to get his ID. I’m a vet and have a great deal of respect for older vets. But I digress.

You misunderstand. I’m not advocating a picture ID. I’m just saying I don’t think it will be the disaster some say it will be. I think both major parties will set up some type of volunteer transportation to help people get there ID.

And yes. This had nothing to do with controlling voter fraud. It’s a way for both parties to control an election. In Texas the big thing is redistricting. The Repubs have gerrymandered the voting districts so the districts are more conservative. The new districts were ruled illegal by the court and now Texas has to redraw the voting district.

Both parties are corrupt and just as evil. Both will do anything and everything they can, no matter how vile, just to win elections.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and SB 1070 was a Republican Party operation in Arizona in the 2010's to create thousands of new felons who would never vote...

[-] 1 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

now - we should include every congressperson who is wasting time trying t o repeal ACA

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

This is what they do when the VRA was still the law of the land, what do you think they will do in the future? What do you think about universal background checks for gun buyers? What if we do keep a list of legal firearm buyers, what's wrong with that?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

In a sane world, keeping a check on firearm users is par for the course.

So are cooling off periods between gun purchase, and gun ownership.

If you really want to live in the wild west, move to south America.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hope you come back and read the thread builder.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I'll ignore the gun talk. The topic is the new Texas voter ID law. Is ir reasonable to require a photo ID to vote? Keep in mind the ID's are free. Also, a few other types of ID's are valid, such as a drivers license, military ID, law enforcement ID, passport, etc...

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Felons should be able to vote. Everyone makes mistakes.

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Some felons can. I think it depends on certain circumstances, like whether you actually went to prison or not. If you get a 'suspended disposition of sentence' you get probation but still have the felony on your record. Those guys can still vote.

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

You would be suprised how many people have gone to prison and are functioning decent people.

I just always view this as one of either bringing in the state or not. As soon as you bring them in, it gets messy. 100% of everyone can vote. Show up and vote. That's what I favor.

Once we start picking who can and who cant, interests come into play, the media takes sides, politicians get an agenda....the whole thing goes to shit.

Just my opinion.

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Nah, I wouldn't be a bit surprised. I've known quite a few, including some close friends. A guy I grew up with did 8 years in Marion and he was good guy. Family man, great sense of humor, not at all violent. But I do agree that a felony conviction shouldn't automatically bar you from voting.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

dems dont want photo I.D.'s ,..........it helps to prevent fraud.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The votes are counted in secret on computers. There is no way to determine fraud anymore.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

The obama people ( his followers) and rinos are, the rest are not. The USA is not only being robbed , the principles on which it was founded are being destroyed.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

obama didnt win , the machines were rigged.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The main focus is not to create great elections, it is to maintain faith in the system.

The RNC was never serious about winning, or out of 300 million people they would have found a better leader than Romney.

Why would they replace him? The place is being robbed, in broad daylight, and the people are fine with it.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

not all voting is done by computer machines, there are still paper ballots. beside that, in philly obama got 100% of the votes,.........not possible. in palm beach county, obama got over 100% of the vote,..not possible.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

According to who? News channels? Show me someone who counted those ballots. There arent any.

They ignore the fraud when they want, and make it up when it suits their agenda.

The entire thing is a joke at this point.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

ignore the gun talk? why? how is it different? what would be the problem with the federal govenment keeping a list of who owns guns and how many?

"Can you say slippery slope?"

Of course you don't want to talk about that here.

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

The difference is registering guns gives the government the information to confiscate guns in the future. And even if you don't believe that, what is accomplished by gun registration? No thanks, I don't trust the government that much. Do you?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

but sure I'll answer your question too just so that you know that it makes far more sense to have a complete gun registry than to require voter ID, and I will ask you to tell me who has died, or what other horrible outcome has occurred because we didn't have a voter ID law somewhere? as far as a registry of exactly who owns what kind of guns well when ever there's a gun death the cops could go to those people who own those kinds of guns and ask if they mind if they check ballistics, that might be helpful in finding the criminal.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Soda causes 25k deaths per year according to new reports.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

but you trust the government to decide who should vote and who shouldn't? you got a twisted and naive sense of trust...

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Doesn't seem twisted to me. Every citizen who is not a felon should be encouraged to vote. Also, people who own guns should be encouraged to NOT register their guns. Pretty simple.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It's unreasonable to DEMAND someone apply for it.

They should be distributed free for everyone, in every State.

PLUS.

WTF was wrong with a voter ID card that I already applied for and have in my possession?

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Most states already send a voter registration card to voters who have registered to vote. It's not a picture ID though. I think most states allow voters to use the voter registration card to vote. In my state, up until this court decision, you could vote with the voter registration card or a approved picture ID. I always just show them my drivers license.

Personally I think this is much ado about nothing. I don't see it as an undue hardship on very many people to get a picture ID. Especially since both parties will probably be volunteering to take people to get the picture ID.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're missing the point.

It's unnecessary, and therefore an imposition.

What of those citizens who are unable to get an adequate photograph?

They will quite simply, be purged.

It's aim, is to continue voter purging, ala Weyrich/ALEC.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Check into those requirements - as to what types of proof of ID you need to get your State Picture ID. Texass would not be the 1st red state to make it near impossible for some to get the ID.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Last time I had to get one in New York the birth certificate cost me around $50 to get it.

http://www.health.ny.gov/vital_records/birth.htm

That being said, my license was expired- why do they expire...just to get you to reapply to get another $100 out of ya- so I couldnt just order a duplicate.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

50.00 and that was if you could get a copy - many people can not get a copy of their birth certificate.

That is sad that you have to go through reapplication - I only have to renew ( renewal fee ) - this does require a new picture taken at the center though.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Depends on what they have to do to get the ID.

Yes ID requirements have prevented people from voting.

[-] -1 points by BleakerSt (-1) 1 year ago

Do you really think that southern states are about to go back to pre-1964 voting laws?

[-] 0 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

Do you really think they will not do what they have been trying to do for decades?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Do you really think they have learned nothing about voter suppression? There are schools and other places where people study and learn stuff, so in other words it will be much worse.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

As an FYI, Texas implements voter ID law just hours after the court ruling. So my question is: Does requiring a picture ID to vote prevent anyone from voting?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Not everyone has a picture, are you going to TX to give them to those that don't?

Can you say Poll Tax?

The real question here is are you prepared to raise taxes on rich people to ensure that all requirements can be met by all people without a cost to them?

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Photo id's are free in Texas. Always have been.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It's also free for the federal government to keep a record of firearm sales, even though there has been no misuse of voting as far as anyone can find I believe firearms have from time top time been misused, So I assume you have no problem with the government keeping a list of who owns guns and how many each person owns?

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Forget it. I'm not registering my guns. The last thing I want is for the government to know who has guns. I don't trust the government that much. Do you?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

but you trust them to decide on if you're good enough to vote? you seem to pick and choose a lot on what you trust the government to do, and nobody has died from voter fraud, you're just sort of upside down all the way around

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The entire voting system is rigged anyways. Go ahead and vote, this ship is going down. 100% Democrats in the House, Senate and POTUS wont do a damn thing.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In 1993 we balanced the budget and put the nation on the strongest economic course it has seen in many decades so good in fact that REAL wages started to increase, maybe you don't give a shit about stuff like that or maybe you're just full of shit.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Like I said it worked, real wages were increasing by one point that hardly ever happens in America anymore, there was a time when it was common.

Yes in a democracy nobody gets everything they want, but I still don't think you people should make me King, no matter how much better of a job I would do.

[-] -2 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

civil rights have not been overturned,...the 10th amendment had been upheld.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Equality is not a "greater than" proposition.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

The only surprising thing is how people are surprised. We allowed the govt to kill or indefinatly detain us without trial with hardly a whimper. Just wait. This will get the same reaction and that will encourage them to attack more rights. I am starting to feel like we deserve the corrupt govt we have. Hopefully there will be a backlash and I will be proven wrong. Just don't hold your breath.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Of course we get the government we deserve, same as life.

[-] -2 points by Clancy (42) 1 year ago

Civil Rights have not been overturned, what they did doesn't in any way what so ever prevent blacks or other minorities from voting.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Not over turned? It just doesn't apply anywhere anymore. The southern states will take care of the problem of poor people voting, you just watch.

[-] 0 points by Clancy (42) 1 year ago

That is totally ridiculous, racism and hate aren't just rampant in the south anymore.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

True, there are Republicans all over the country.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 1 year ago

Another ridiculous thing to say, that's like saying all liberals are earth loving pussies.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I didn't say all Republicans are white racists, but I think would be fair to say almost all white racists are Republicans.

As far as liberals loving the earth that might be fair to say as well, but what has Republicans being all a bunch of pussies got to do with it?

Because it is true that all Republicans are pussies.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim7 (-5) 1 year ago

On the assumption you will not bother to read the poll results, I must append this to my post. It speaks to people like you and many others on this forum...

But the results for blacks are a big surprise. Blacks are more likely (by 7 percentage points) to think most blacks are racist than to think most whites are. Moreover, they are 11 points likelier than liberals (regardless of race) to think most blacks are racist, and 9 points likelier than Democrats. And blacks are 3 points less likely than liberals to think most whites are racist.

All of which suggests that the people likeliest to believe most whites are racist and most blacks are not are those who are both liberal and white. Which reinforces a point we've made often in this column: that a lot of what drives the futile debate over race in America is white liberals' psychological need to feel morally superior to other whites.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324853704578587610461933172.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Facts ARE Fun!!

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim7 (-5) 1 year ago

It's also, by your logic, fair to say that all black racists are democrats. Have you seen the result of a recent rasmusen poll:

When Rasmussen Reports asked some of its polling subjects to conduct an odd exercise in racial stereotyping, the results were counterintuitive, or at least counterstereotypical:

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans

You can click here for further details

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324853704578587610461933172.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

sounds like white people should be pissed off about the VRA being overturned, now that I think about it all people of all color should be pissed about this

[-] -2 points by beautifulworld (21378) 1 year ago

We need to push harder from the left. We don't need a left in this country that is bought out and apathetic. We need a real left. Wake up people!

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You take every subject as an opportunity to attack the dems, how transparent!

[+] -6 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The main problem with the left is their ego prevents them from wholeheartedly supporting Democrats while the right (the TEA Party) would never run their own person they fight in the primaries for the most pro-1% person they can get then they bash the Ds, while the left is constantly attacking the Ds as well. The left seems to feel that all issues must be addressed, so we complain about Obama's drones while the Robert's Court and the GOP decide who should be allowed to vote. Maybe we should put this house fire out before we pick out new curtains.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21378) 1 year ago

If the right thought they had a real left to deal with, things would be different.

[+] -5 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Is that like "real" butter? or a "real" American?

That may sound flip-it but it is a serious question do you only consider those that agree with all your opinions to be the "real" left?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21378) 1 year ago

No but the "real" left doesn't agree more with the "right" and bow down to their wishes and accept their bribery.

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

glad you're keeping us straight on what's real and all.... or is this just your childish way of trying to say Democrats aren't part of the "real" left?

Have you appointed yourself the high holy keeper of who gets in and who don't?

My guess you're just a political hack hanging around to spread more Green Party Lies.

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Truly pathetic ! You bandy the word ''hack'' around so fkn easily yet the ONLY ''hack'' on this thread is YOU !! I suppose that being a Democrat in Arizona, makes you feel like a 'leftist radical' and relatively speaking in AZ - you are ... BUT under any normal terms of reference - The Democrap Party Machine and its traitorous, 'bought and paid for' pro-corporate pols are 'right wing' by ANY measure !!!

However your lifetime's allegiance to the Dems & the likes of Hitlary Clinton will prevent you extracting your head from your ass for long enough to see that in any objective way. No matter how much I try to be nice to you and engage you because we both like Paul Buchheit, your miopic b-s still sticks in my craw but I'm still imploring & daring you point blank to try to engage with the following links !!

Btw, there's no need to reply to me here IF it's going to be anything like as dumb as the one it took you a whole week to come up with to 'bw' and you'd really be far better off replying to TikiJ's more important questions & points on this mini-thread than wasting any of your misplaced apoplexy on me !

O.W.S. is here to think the unthinkable & ''you don't get a revolution by supporting the status-quo'' ~*~

ad iudicium ...

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you don't get a revolution by doing the same third party bullshit that was done in 1980 and 1993 and 2000 and and and why not break the system by doing what hasn't been done attack the BAD GUYS

oh and try the truth for a change

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Yep, you just got more stupid - above and below !!! Your only 'truth' comes through the 'Inveterate Dem / Incorrigible Shill' bifocals !! Sadly you succeed in giving the impression of a Dem ass-licker and 0.01% lickspitlle .. whether unknowingly or otherwise !

However - I still think that your video has 99% value so I link to it again and dare you to try the synopsis video to the excellent documentary 'Heist' (2nd link below) and see if you can read through the short last item without busting a gut or popping a gasket :

You need to differentiate between The Corporate Controlled Democratic Party Machine and decent, Dem voters who really only vote for The Democratic Party candidates (good or bad) - because like wiping your ass, it's NOT a subject for polite conversation but like ... wtf is the option ?! In any case your preference for a one party state is ALREADY here !! It's just that you have a visceral hatred of The Other Faction !!!

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

People, who would be King, like you, will never understand, you care nothing for the people you care only for yourself.

I have laid out a careful and detailed plan of how it is possible to get from here to there, but because there is no room in it for your dream of power you reject it out of hand and offer no alternative. The time for dreaming about some future perfect world is past it is a time of action or death. We must take the most effective action at our disposal at every opportunity or this thing is over in a generation.

ahhh ok I just reread both of our comments here, I would suppose you might be fair to conclude I have some affinity for the dems but I don't think you understand that it is the very corruption of the dems that mandate immediate action if the current stand off is allowed to continue the grip of money within the entire power structure will become Orwellian in scope. So these people who feed themselves by criticizing the left are people and everybody has to make a living, but it would be nice if they could find some way to do so without helping the rich gain more control.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

''You care nothing for'' democracy, ''you care only for'' duopoly !!!

Bump for your thread and a firmish slap upside for your head !!

Don't imagine Hitlary as anything but 'not as' 'right' as GOP !

multum in parvo ...

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You dream of being King, I am here in an effort to get something done about wealth inequality because failure to address that will be the end of democracy, you do nothing but distract people from the true enemy and help the 1% keep their footmen in power.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

You silly little man but nevertheless, I will continue to persevere in the short term for just a little longer :

I won't tell you who you have to thank for that as you'd only pop yet another gasket but read it & digest.

ne quid nimis ...

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Ok so I read the crap, so here's the deal I'm OK with the GOP dying, it's just people like Joe Scarborough and Krugman that think it's a bad thing. As a matter of fact from their preservative it is because that's how we bring the whole thing down, one at a time...

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't really waste my time reading Krugman much, so you want to tell me what you find interesting about it?

You might as well be getting a GOP paycheck..

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"Obscenities of Capitalism'', by Paul Buchheit :

My days of bumping your threads are fast coming to an end but Paul Buchheit warrants this reply, despite your obnoxious, querulous and graceless nature. So, I echo the sentiments expressed here :

vale ...

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Hacks are those that spread fucking lies, like "they're all the same" to spread their political bullshit, you are another Green Party lying asshole from way back it is you and others like you we have to thank for the Iraq War and all the rest that came from the Bush years and you would do it all over again and put more GOP in power to feed your fucking ego.

When will you get it through your thick obtuss head that killing the GOP is the only chance we got!

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh yeah, you get a revolution by voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Man, you must've had a stroke during your absence because you say some of the dumbest partisan bullshit this side of VQ. I'll say this one more time but I don't know why I bother. Ever heard of PNAC? The invasion of Iraq would've happened regardless of who was in office.

And the statement that the people that voted for third-party candidates are responsible for the Iraq War has got to be, hands down, one of the stupidest things ever said on this forum.

Oh, and thanks for the link to that roll of shit-paper from the AFL-CIO down below. It was very entertaining.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

we certainly got change in 2000, thanks to a strong Green Party run

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh shit, here we go again with that fantasy.

Hey, check this out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The entire establishment voted for war with Iraq, but Im sure Gore's incredible leadership would have stopped the powers that be. Because Gore is such a bad ass, he would stand up to them and say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTY836hhY7o

This guy is a miracle.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Some people just can't see the forest, Tiki, no matter how hard they squint. They can't see he's just another smooth-talking, good-looking politician. They can hold him up on a pedestal only BECAUSE he didn't get elected. Had he got in there, they wouldn't be able to do that, because, just like Clinton, he would've played the game the same as all the rest.

And I really, really don't get this "had Gore been President, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq." That's the most bizarre of all.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

What's this?? Copy of a Koch or Halliburton love letter? Sacred brotherhood of corp(se)oRATions?

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, and check the date: January 1998. You already know about PNAC so I'm preaching to the choir with you, but most Americans believe we went there because of 9-11. That's so obviously not the case. All they were waiting for was an excuse. Hmmm . . .

Hey, you might have seen this when Tiki posted it but if not, it's a pretty entertaining five minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yuC_4mGTs98

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You almost have to watch it a few times cause he covers a lot of stuff in that short clip. Hell, he covers just about every base, I think. I enjoyed it a lot.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - 9/11 was just the final touch that lit that match - the lobbying for invasion has been a long term project.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Sure keep telling yourself any lie you have to but here in the real world Bush didn't have to win, Nader could have worked his ass off for the most environmental candidate the nation has ever seen right when the world needed it most but instead he fed his ego and killed humanity.

Here's a link for you:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

keep checking back there are daily updates...it matters who wins, when you idiot ego feeding jackasses figure that out we might get something done

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Obama has attacked 8 nations.

Clinton's record

1995 Bosnia.

1996 Iraq

1998 Iraq

1998 Afghanistan

1998 Sudan

1999 Serbia in the Kosovo

That admin also shipped all the jobs overseas via GATT and NAFTA, repealed Glass Steagall, etc.

ALL of the big shot Dems voted for the war in Iraq.

You act like after 9/11, it wouldnt have happened if that lackey Gore was in. Like he is some great leader or something.

Why do you ignore reality?

I cant believe there are still people endorsing one group of criminals over another. How are we not past that at this point.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Gore would have been so good he would have made us forget Clinton.

You clearly haven't taken the time to learn very much about recent events. Have you heard about how the budget was balanced and we were paying down the debt?

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.

Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

Then of course there's Kyoto.

2001 George W. Bush withdraws US endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. In November, the COP meeting in Marrakesh finalizes the provisions[clarification needed] of the Kyoto Protocol without U.S support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

I could talk about Bosnia, or how the Kurds are doing but discussing serious subjects with people with no attachment to reality seems foolish so I've already gone on too long.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Do you consider the 150+ yr old Democratic Party to be the real left? I dont see how anything progressive could come from that history.

And judging from their pro war, job outsourcing and banker bailing ways of the last 20 years, it seems to be fairly obvious.

[+] -5 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I consider deciding whose real this and real that is a bunch of horse shit disguised as political insight and design to build the most harmful political party the world has ever seen the Greens.

Now if you're talking about raising taxes on rich people well that's different, that's simple and straight up either your for it or against it, and if you're for it then that's good enough for me.

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Dems could have done that after 08. They didnt. Why do you think that is?

Did they cave into pressure? Or did they simply not want to bite the hand that feeds them?

This is something that needs to be addressed before going forward in any talk of elections. That was a landslide election. A monster. And it produced absolutely nothing. And I mean nothing. There was not one single game changing piece of legislation done with it. It was all there for the taking.

That failure has never been addressed. And its a bit disturbing as to why not.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's a list of what got done during the first term, or maybe you hate unions.

http://www.aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/Election-2012/President-Obama-s-Accomplishments

It's back biting piss-ants like you that keep the 1% in power.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

yeah for the 10% union people

is it 10% ?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

in the 80's people I worked with people who voted three times against joining the union, now the company had lots of paid mandated meetings and the union had none so I blame the people and the Reagan led GOP, my response is to do all I can to kill the GOP and praise unions

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Reagan is so non persona representing nothing

his policy was anti-union when he fire air traffic controllers

and he smuggled cocaine to sell weapons to Iran

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Well it's always good to know a little bit about what has happened.

and of course the "people" are still around, so are the Republicans, too bad more people don't know more about the evil they do, if only someone would tell them....

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

You forgot three more free trade deals. The epitome of anti union.

Passing an insurance written healthcare corporate mandate isnt reform. The previous conditions clause was a good one, but the level raise of medicaid was pathetic at best. The mandate for those over 15k per year is criminal. That law is going to fuck a lot of people over.

LIBOR, MF Global, Attacking 8 sovereign nations, signing NDAA to take away our rights to trial, Signing MOnsanto protection act to poison us all, force feeding prisoners in Gitmo that just want to die because they've given up, and spying on all here and abroad...

If you want to focus on the few crumbs of good in light of those absolutely appauling and disgusting pieces I just listed, then more power to you.

As far as "back biting piss-ants like you" I wont even go there.

Here, BlueCross BlueShield helped write that fascist nonsense, study up: https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

At least understand what you are endorsing and the precedent it sets for all the other slimeballs that will come after him.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"You know those t-shirts that say "I'm with stupid" and the arrow points next to them...

hahah"

That's hilarious! It's too bad the general public can't get close to these guys anymore 'cause that would be a great photo-op.

But then, there's always Photoshop, heheh.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Hello stupid, how you doing?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Pretty good shill, how are you?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"LIBOR, MF Global, Attacking 8 sovereign nations, signing NDAA to take away our rights to trial, Signing MOnsanto protection act to poison us all, force feeding prisoners in Gitmo that just want to die because they've given up, and spying on all here and abroad..."

And that's just for starters. How about going back on just about every major campaign promise he ever made.

Oh, and . . .

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[-] 3 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Don't worry, the corporatist will make sure you are only being forced to pay corporations a certain amount. They will make sure you dont get taken advantage of (facepalm)

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2013/05/07/the-obamacare-subsidy-you-could-be-missing

Someone earning 35k per year getting stuck with a $250/mo bill for shit insurance is not anyone's idea of reform. And just wait until this thing tips back towards the right, like it always does, its going to get really ugly.

Here's another kicker- ya know who is going to be able to handle the costs of Obamacare in the business world? The big guys.

Ya know who aint? The little guys who are holding on by a thread. Say good bye to even more small businesses.

Why just expand medicaid when you can royally fuck over the entire nation I guess.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yep, it's the same old song. The little guy gets the shaft again.

But you gotta excuse facts, 'cause life's been hard on him, you can see it in his face. But apparently it's only been bad on him from 1980 to 1992, and 2000 to 2008. But it's been peachy from '92 to 2000, and from '08 till now.

These die-hards will never see the truth in this system, that the Reps and Dems act divided on bullshit wedge issues to keep up the illusion, but when it comes to the serious stuff, they collude behind closed doors. Then tell the public it was the other side's fault.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Had to reply here Zen. Hope you see it. No reply button below and it was your only comment on this thread.

"In short, the President was abandoned by the public."

I tried to find a Truthout article last night but was unsuccessful. There was a very telling comment by Obama that I think speaks to the whole problem with him not getting much done. I think someone asked him about some of his failures or broken campaign promises, I don't remember the lead-up. But his reply to the question was "Have you ever heard of Dr. Martin Luther King?"

Translation: "Hey I don't want to get assassinated." The way I read it is it pretty much proves he's just a puppet doing the bidding of the real players running the show. Considering Dr. King was assassinated by our government, that's what Obama fears. What does that tell you about the real state of affairs? That the POTUS can't do what he wants for fear of getting whacked by the very people he works with. Welcome to the United States of America circa 2013.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

I think we should make the next State of the Union a fashion expo.

You know those t-shirts that say "I'm with stupid" and the arrow points next to them...

hahah

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Holy shit that link is depressing.

God I hate to turn this into Obamabashing 101, but how anyone can look at all of this and see something positive is beyond me.

[-] 5 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"Toss in Jack Lew and before him Tim Geithner, and we literally have an entire Wall St Board running the show!!"

That's what I don't get. That alone should wake these guys up to who really runs the show. Jeez!

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, and I think that link isn't up to date. For instance, it doesn't mention the appointment of Holder as Attorney General even though there's a clear conflict of interest. No wonder no big banks have been prosecuted. Holder and Breuer both used to work for the law firm that represented them! From Reuters:

"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm (Covington & Burling) that represented a Who's Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows."

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Toss in Jack Lew and before him Tim Geithner, and we literally have an entire Wall St Board running the show!!

This is like the twilight zone...an episode from 2002 :)

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Life is about choices, would we be in better shape if Nader had chosen to support Gore instead of inflating his ego all over the country sure we would. Things could be better, but they could also be worse, Romney could be President. I would have chosen Hilary instead of Obama because I always thought that he didn't hate Republicans enough to do what needed to be done. I see you don't really mind Republicans being in office either, you seem to be fine with all the stuff Bush did you just don';t like Obama. I think you're most likely a Green Party political hack just here to tell lies and puff up your ego and build your political party.

Life is all about the choices you make you can choose to beat your chest and elect Republicans or you can get involved and beat them people who encourage third party votes, people who tear down other liberal are people who help elect the GOP and the 1% just love them!!

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Your views on democracy are pathetic. Very sad and very very weak.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Your grasp of reality is nonexistent. Very sad and very very weak.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Of course you won't address the back biting because you're real intent is to build your own power structure, your own political system because in the end you don't give a shit about America or the people who live here, you care only for the smell of your own crap, OWS has committed suicide on it's own ego.

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

I wont address it because after seeing you on video I feel more sorry for you than anything else.

"OWS has committed suicide on it's own ego."

Good bye troll.

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

well we won't miss you that much, you never seemed to have much worth saying anyway

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You are pretty edgy. But I sort of sense that I might agree with you.

1) Democrats have been silent on this slip into the Police State under Obama.
2) TEA Party platform would seem to preclude looking at all the old republicans that want to keep their Social Security & Medicare.
3) No one has a clue what the Republicans stand for except for deregulations to benefit all Business Industries, deregulation of banks & private banks, Privatization of Public functions & public lands like Greece, and status quo & austerity for the people who lost jobs due to the decapitalization of America.

But to your point... I think there are Nazis on the Left and on the Right. This is a problem with Education, Leadership, Truth in Media, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of People, Freedom of Thought, freedom from corruption of powerful corporations and organizations, freedom from people that make their bonuses from suppressing the news or the people and the questions from the people.....

No. I am not imagining all this. This is real. But I think you sense this or have stated this over and over... while I have no idea what you have posted.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Truth, that's really all we need I think, if these "radicals" on the left would acknowledge the truth that no matter how much money they take the dems are ten times better than the GOP, but that truth hurts them when it comes to their goal of building a different power center, one more responsive to their demands. This ego and the lie that comes from it culprits the efforts of the left and the GOP win as they did in 2000. If we address the truth that the separation of wealth combined with the deference we give to the power of money treating it like freedom itself. These truths get buried when you start talking about trust funds and real things because those that have them know that real change could affect them too.

oh and my vote count on the comment above tells you much about the posters here...

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Yet another in a long litany of glaring, hair on fire and, now, basic civil rights differences and results between the lesser evil choice of Dems and greater evil Cons and being fooled into not voting, letting Cons steal elections, start for-profit wars, deregulate Banksters and "Job Creators" and appoint RW zealot Justices. You better bookmark this newbies and samers, you know how easily bamboozled and forgetful you are come Voting time. See, Elections DO have Consequences. R.I.P. Voters Rights Act.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Can you imagine spending 30 seconds in the mind of a serious McTurtle supporter. Now that would be horror!

The joke/crime is they give corps far more rights than mere people.

I guess, to these RW nuts, all's well that ends with a prayer for forgiveness. That's why the framers made America a nation of laws, and why these RW nuts need a serious dose of justice.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Corporations are created to have immunity, it is the mechanism through which "people" do stuff without being held personally responsible for what they do. Then the Supreme Court comes along and says oh but they are "people" too.

The real solution is corporate disillusion.

[-] -3 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

We had a strict charter system that used to work. "Must serve the people."

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's an oldie but I think it gets at what you're saying...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY

[-] -2 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Thanx