Forum Post: HUFFINGTON Post - There's no difference between Reps and Dems
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 11:48 p.m. EST by theaveng
(602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Okay yes there are some differences. The Reps and Dems are not identical, but they are so close to one another the differences barely matter. Quoting the Huffington Post:
"President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )"
"We now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
"Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change."
LINK to full ARTICLE - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html
I feel like a dupe for having voted for Obama. Just under three years ago, I caught a bus on a cold January night in NYC and went to Washington to attend Obama's inaugural on an equally cold day. I received a little Amerrican flag while at the inaugural which hung in my living room.
Last week only a couple of blocks from where I caught that bus, three years earlier, I brought that same flag with me while protesting Obama's day in New York soliciting campaign money from the 'big boys'. How's that for irony and disappointment?
and I bet the flag was made in China.
Well said.
I'm proud to say I never voted for Obama. Nor Bush. Nor Clinton. I feel sorry for people like my brother who voted for any of these guys, and now regret it. I guess you need to do your research FIRST before casting a vote.
I WISH I had never voted for Bush. I certainly wasn't dumb enough to vote for him a second time, after seeing what he did in his first year in office. I did not vote for Obama. In fact, I did not vote at all, seeing no candidate who was worth voting for and having already once helped inflict Bush upon the world. I withheld from voting in penance for having been Bushwacked once.
I certainly won't vote for Obama this next time around because he has accomplished almost nothing. He plays the same political game with the rich that Bush did. And I've never seen a line-up of more ridiculous clowns than the current Republican line-up. I think, "Are these really the BEST people in the United States that either party can put forward?" I suspect they are because BOTH parties are interested in living and playing in the laps of the rich. That limits the candidates from either group to those who will play the game.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/
Yes, doing your research before casting your vote is a great idea and one of the best ways is to go to the non-partisan Project Vote Smart. Until this corrupt, polluted political and financial system is cleaned up, don't waste your time voting. Don't be a dupe like I was.
If this was any other year, like 2000 or 2004 or 2008, I'd agree. The choices of Bush or Gore or Kerry or McCain or Obama or Gingrich? All shit.
But THIS year we have a man who is essentially Thomas Jefferson reincarnated. (Jefferson - the guy who founded the Democrat Party.) That's the man I will vote for during the primacy season.
.
We do? Who do we have who is essentially Thomas Jefferson reincarnated? I agree with you about the candidates listed above.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/
Thanks to whomever gave my +3 points.
So true. Republicans and Democrats are Frick and Frack. No significant difference when it comes to serving the rich. What "change" did Obama bring. He continued to carry out the exact same bailout policies with the exact same people in charge as George Bush. He didn't bring ONE single idea to the table for economic change at a time when the economy is the biggest issue in the WORLD.
Moreover, he is campaigning NOW on a promised job creation program for his next term, when he should have been campaigning with a specific job creation program during his first election cycle. The economy, after all, became the number-one issue and the number-one Bush failure during the year of Obama's first presidential campaign.
So, Obama's ideas now are too little, too late. At this juncture, he should NOT be talking about what he is GOING to do. He should have already BEEN DOING it for three years and we should all be talking about whether or not it had succeeded!
As a result of Obama's first term of "change," unemployment has not been worse for the entire last half of a century:
http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/12/unemployment-rate-underrated/
--Knave Dave
--Knave Dave
A vote for either corrupt party is a basically just a vote for Wall St.
Go Green instead - in a Mass Exodus!
Vote for Jill Stein!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
http://www.jillstein.org/
See what our national political debate would look like if we re-introduced this one color (Green):
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
The various political party's positions on Occupy Wall St.:
http://metapolitik.org/sites/default/files/metapol-newleft.png
One big party and we were not invited.
that's why we need Chavez!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117181384995669233&q=Venezuela+Chavez#docid=368302323300507208
http://metapolitik.org/sites/default/files/metapol-newleft.png
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse#4
yes and bush is the same as gore - said dear ralph
and we got iraqed
and we got dicked
and we got tarped
gore would have lied about wmds too
and ignored the pdbs
Gore probably would have acted like Obama is acting now. i.e. Be a warmonger.
The only benefit to having Gore win in 2000 is then we could have blamed the 1999-2000 crash on Clinton, and the war years 2001 to 2008 on Gore and his Democrats. Same way we blame the Democrats for the Vietnam Years. And anti-black segregation. And involving us in that European War in 1916. And Jim Crow laws. And southern slavery.
The only good things the Democrat Party has ever done is (1) FDR and (2) elected Andrew Jackson so he could kill the first central bank. That's about it.
BINGO! you win the prize -
the only "people" who use the term "Democrat Party" aren't
Since we can't vote for none of the above then why don't we all vote for the least popular candidate that both parties prefer not to get elected. It probably won't solve any of our problems but then none of them could anyway. If we vote for the least popular candidate, we can spend the next 4 years being amused by the chaos in government.
Right now the person both the Democrats and Republicans (and Corporations) hate is Ron Paul. As that guy on Comedy Central said, the D and R-controlled media act as if Congressman Paul doesn't even exist. (He's received the least facetime in the debates.)
the guy who recieved the least amout of media time is Buddy Roemer -
if it wasn't for JH - i'd say the only sane R
IN THE DEBATES I said. Buddy whathisname wasn't even in the debates.
yes - I can read - but you, who seem expert on RP -
do you know anything about BR ?
I'm not pushing BR - but if you have a chance - listen to him
of course neither has a chance
Maybe after the election is over. For now I'm focused on the people who are polling in the top 3, because they are the ones with an actual chance of winning
.
Almost no-one here believes in the false left right political paradigm.
They are too busy writing RonPaul, Libertarian and Republican hater threads.
Which appear to garner the most support and posts here on this forum.
Mind you, most threads with differing opinions that open REAL dialogue are cleaned from the forum anyways
Haven't really seen much of the cleaning you talk about, but everything else has been my experience. Still not sure stuck it out as long as I have. The weird gate-keeping going on is overbearing and, well, unattractive, I guess.
Some of us have known this for quite some time.
Yeah I've known it since the late 90s. I refuse to vote for Obama or any other warmonger.
That leaves only one man I can choose with a clean conscience.
Yes, I totally agree. The one thing that hasn't been discussed much by OWS supporters is the decline in our civil liberties. We have become a police state. As this is an apolitical organization, I will not mention any names. However, interestingly there is one politician on the left of the political spectrum, and one on the right that have been talking about this for years. I'll give you a hint as to who they are though: One's first name rhymes with 'Ernie and the other 'Don'. Anyway if our forefathers could be reincarnated, and see how our country has devolved to this point, they would be totally ashamed. I am convinced ot that.
blue repelican? wtf is a blue repelican
one who isn't running for office and feels comfy in a different sweater?
Democrat (blue) registered as a republican in order to vote in republican primaries. That was all explained in the article.
So the article itself is then, part of a strategy, one to pull the entire dem voting block back toward the center and undercut right wing repelican influence.
It's an appeal to leftists to agitate, and so create pressure on the political process - well I'm all for strategic thinking but if people are going to knock our participation in Libya it should be with precision.
I don't mean pointing at one or two cases of friendly fire which we all know is not friendly -
I just want to know why the west should turn their backs on a civilian population threatened with annihilation at the hands of a madman.
You STILL haven't read the article. What the hell? Is it too much effort to click the link and read the Huffington Post brief? Jeez. - The article is about removing Barack Obama from office, because he betrayed all his promises to the Democrats, and putting-in Ron Paul as the ONLY candidate who supports anti-war, pro-peace Americans. It's about electing the best MAN for president, regardless of his party.
Al-Qaeda now controls the Libyan apparatus (their flags are flying over the government buildings). If you think I'm going to the praise either Bush or Obama for this outcome, think again.
That same thing will happen in Syria if we interfere there too.
.
so go lawn rawl. I don't care. That nimrod wants to abolish FEMA.
al-Qaida has flags flying over Libyan government buildings . . . I had not heard that.
I'm kinda surprised that you acknowlege al-Qaida even exists . . .
Strange then that FEMA is fully and completely funded in Paul's 2013 budget proposal. I guess you're wrong.
And why do you think I would not acknowledge the existence of al-Qaeda? We've been fighting them since the first attack in the mid-90s. AND YES your hero Obama defeated Libya's Ghaddafi and now al-Qaeda is in charge. Rather than "praising" Obama you should give him the same status you gave to George Bush.
Actually I'm not wrong - he may have changed his mind, I don't know - but I did watch him with my own eyes advocate ending FEMA on CNN.
You can Google
Or you can follow these links here:
CNN
IBTimes
DailyPaul
To be fair all these articles were posted between Aug. 27 and 29, 2001. He could have changed his tune since then.
But perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should respond in a Forum Post . . .
What he actually says is the existence of FEMA violates the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Nevertheless he still fully-funds the program in his budget. Ditto the EPA. Ditto the Social Security and Medicare programs. Et cetera.
Now compare that to other candidates/presidents who, by their own words or previous actions, want to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, and so on.
I'm sorry but I absolutely cannot justify voting for these agents of mass slaughter. (Killing is only defensible in a case of self defense.) So I will support Paul even though I don't agree with everything he says, but because he has vowed to bring the soldiers home and cut military spending to just 200 billion a year.
Also produce a truly balanced budget with no deficit. (Again, no other candidate has done that.)
where does RP stand on
FAA?
SEC?
EPA?
abortions?
privatizing prisons?
privatizing education?
social security?
medical care for all?
state board certification of eye doctors?
coffee shop owner's rights to segregate?
where does RP stand ?
I know he's anti-war - so was William Franklin ( Ben's son ) - and i wouldn't vote for him
Almost every one of those he considers a State issue per the 9th and 10th amendments (rights and powers reserved to the People and the People's state legislatures). I agree with him because it makes more sense to keep those functions close to the People, where politicians are our neighbors, and therefore can be directly-held accountable, rather than ~1000 miles away where DC bureaucrats ignore us.
According to his 2013 budget, the FAA, SEC, EPA, Medicare, Social security are still fully funded. ("We made a promise to our retirees and we must keep that promise.") The only thing he's really phasing-out is the U.S. occupation of soldiers in Germany, Japan, Korea, etcetera (saving about 500 billion) and the TSA (because he believes sexual assault or naked-body scanners violate the 4th amendment).
Paul is the only one that is providing a balanced budget. Paul is the only one that still enforces our Bill of Rights, rather than ignore it. I would sooner "waste" my vote on Paul then vote for any of the other men who are, in my opinion, guilty of war crimes (killing innocent foreigners, and imprisoning POWs without trial) (in violation of Geneva convention).
I think I've heard that before - what's that? Oh, what? they are already on the way? Cool
Yeah-ya - sounds like a real cut
Here:
Yes the Iraq soldiers are on their way home.
But Congressman Paul has vowed to bring home ALL the soldiers, from Afghanistan, Libya, Germany, Japan, Korea, Australia, Serbia. Approximately 250,000 in total.
Your sarcasm is cute but dropping spending from the current 700 billion to 200 billion IS a huge cut. I guess he could drop it to zero, but then how would we defend ourselves from potential invaders? (shrug). So what candidate should I vote for instead? All the rest of them want to wage war overseas and kill innocent people.
Can you point me in the direction of a better man or woman for president?
[Deleted]
I did not say I would not vote. I plan to vote. Most folks around here already know who I plan to vote for . . .
why am I bumping this stupid thread? Silly me.
In anycase, my last response here is -
piss off.