Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Oligarchy Is Now Conspiring With All Its Arms: Polls, Media, Election Rigging, To Steal Election For Republicans

Posted 5 years ago on Oct. 13, 2012, 3:58 p.m. EST by ancientmariner (275)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Only overwealming numbers can reverse all out effort.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

The Predictable Consequence of Lesser Evilism On Wasting Your Vote by M. G. PIETY


A disturbing number of Americans are going to end up wasting their votes in this next election. They’re unhappy with the status quo, but instead of changing it, they’re only going to reinforce it. I’m not talking about democrats who are so unhappy with Obama that they’re planning to vote third-party. I’m talking about democrats who are unhappy with Obama, but who are so afraid of Romney that they’re going to vote for Obama anyway and justify that vote by invoking “the lesser of the two evils” argument. It’s about time someone pointed out that it’s the invocation of that argument to defend otherwise indefensible political choices that has driven us relentlessly into our current position between a rock and a hard place.....

If you vote for a democrat because you think of yourself as progressive you are wasting your vote because what you are actually saying is that you are willing to support a candidate who is not really progressive, that the democrats can continue their relentless march to the right and that you will back them all the way. That is, if you vote for a democrat because you say you are progressive, you are saying one thing and doing another. But actions, as everyone knows, speak louder than words. You can go on posturing about how progressive you are, but if you vote for a democrat that posturing is empty.

...Progressive political change will never be a fact unless we have faith in its coming, unless we have faith that others will back us up when we refuse to be forced to vote yet again for a candidate we do not like.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Teddy Roosevelt's followers had faith in the progressive future (the Progressive Party - the "Bull Mooses"). They didn't know it was backed monetarily by closeted banker-oriented Dems (the Reps were the progressives back then). The plan was to split the progressive vote, install Woodrow Wilson (whom they owned by possession of a blackmailable letter) and through him take control of the currency through the creation of the Fed.

Their third-party divide and rule strategy worked like a charm. We've had a century of Fed banksterism and looting since then.

Keep at it, closeted RATpublican.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Never have I been republican.

Early on Cenk's show when I was impressed with Rocky Anderson on all his explanations, it spoke to me, and where I am on issues

Middle class hasn't been helped for 30 years under both sides., who are cheating you.

It was commented, on that program, that it would be wise to support 3rd party at that point, to pull dems back to center.

I will vote for no republican. I would consider voting O if it was close in my state. Since O will win here regardless of my vote, my vote goes to Rocky.

I don't want to vote dem. I am not a dem anymore. I am not and never was a repub.

The people must retake the government from the life long politicians and their cronies.

Sorry. It may hurt a bit.


Obama hasn't fought enough. Said would fight for universal Health care.

Why didn't he?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I agree, Obama was very disappointing on healthcare. We need to counter the unelected power centers.

Another possible strategy, is to take over the Democratic Party. This is easier than people think. On the ground level, the party is organized in districts (congressional or state legislative, I forget which) with elected, unpaid district leaders. These district clubs essentially decide which candidates enter the political conveyor belt. An organized group of 15-20 could easily take over a district.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

This is truly a good idea.

When I was 18 I attended a level above the district level, or whatever was above level 1- which had a handful of people.

It would also take Ows sympathetic candidates to run for office

 Also, get people interested while young, in college.

Health care

See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care reform in the United States presidential election, 2008

Obama supporters at a campaign rally in Austin, Texas, on February 23, 2007. President Obama said he supports universal health care and programs to increase access to education.[47] On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured.[48] Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance.[49] Obama's health care plan includes implementing guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans, paid for by insurance reform, reducing costs, removing patent protection for pharmaceuticals, and required employer contributions.[50] He would provide for mandatory health care insurance for children. Wikipedia

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Do you support instant-runoff voting? Without it third-party runs make the perfect divide and conquer strategy for overcoming the popular will.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

IRV is ok. We had it here, then voters repealed it.

A majority is dissatisfied and wants better outcomes for economy, and for families.

Average income has gone up $300 in 30 years, but for 1 percent gone up much more. We need to get this improved.



[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

This is an Obama election site, your logic will never be welcome here. See this site is not about change its about re-electing Obama and keeping the status quo

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Obama loves the plutocrats too


But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefitted. The line flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Shhh you will be called a rep hack for pointing that out (like me) your supposed to tow the dem party line

[-] 2 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

You sir are correct!

When I was first on this site in October November a year ago, it was very much more anti duopoly.

Now it's long live the same old system.

Granted, we see much of problems are from politicians, most from one side, as they invent there own reality and incessantly lie & cheat.

I don't see the system changing by buying into the duopoly.

Ows seems to be loosing steam, by focusing on too many issues, and not staying focused on ecomic justice.


All the related issues however interesting and informative, take away from the point of Ows.

We need a new tab on this site for "related issues" under which most of what is on this site belong.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Loseing steam is an understatement, and they deserve to when all they have become is a Obama re-election site.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

that is why I started this thread, based on your inspiring spirit and defender of the truth


and why we read epithets to ows.


We should start a movement: Icararus for OWS: we will assemble at-cost ultralight hang-gliders so we can soar above the BS here and everywhere, and bring the message of OWS to the people once more.

Sorry, just a random thought flew into my head on a walk by the golf course by the bay.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

You had me at ultralight hand gliders!

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago


we can't gather in the public places so we will fly over and around them: surround them.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Don't bring my excitement down with spell typos!! Dam it man that's killing my buzz. Then they would all look like the ants they are!

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

typos are ok. that's why there is spell check and editors.


we should get about 12 people to chip in $1,500.00

time share it. have a big OWS.org painted on it , and a streamer

[-] 2 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

we could even rent it out by the hour, at parks, with liability waivers and insurance, and taxes, etc.

actually, each local OWS should have one.

It sounds like it could be fun, and generate some new noise for OWS

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Do you think there are 12 people in ows with $1500 to spare?

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

ha ha ha

I hope so.

If not, they could be co-signers on a credit card, or incorporate. Write off as a business expense, and if the idea flops, well, corporations are not morally liable for anything, as we are aware. We did it with good intentions.

It could get economy going again.

Maybe there are enough who could get a "business" credit card, with a small debt limit.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

It's probably a safe bet their credit is jacked lol. I'm still just super giddy about flying hang gliders (typos not with standing)!

[-] 1 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

we should start an ows hang-gliding club.I want the motor-glider, so I can take off from in front of house on street.

Sounds like the next big thing.

I'm on west coast. Near Seattle.

We could probably get a tax-write off deduction for what, 25 percent, as well, plus expenses.

It would be a big conversation starter, anyway.

There's got to be 15 cities OWS's individuals who could buy a share. The thing could rotate among cities, if need be. A month in one, then on to next.

Fly it over park-water-ways, with life preserver.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Over at FutureofCapitalism.com this point was made: Obama “has basically enshrined the too-big-to-fail banks while also propping up GE and the firms that will benefit from ObamaCare.”  True enough.


“This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment,” West laments. “We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.


[-] 4 points by ancientmariner (275) 5 years ago

Also: any discrepancies between early exit polling numbers and election outcomes, especially in swing states, will give the highest possible indication that this election is being stolen as was the election of 2000 and 2004

[-] 4 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

If it is so easy for Republicans to steal elections, how did Obama win in 2008?


[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

True I am not a rep but an independent and I have seen more dishonesty come from the Dems, than any other party

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Maybe you should have the cataracts removed.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

20/20 vision here. A few of the prior dem dishonesty's include the re-election of Reid and then in Wis, the attempted voter fraud, trying to oust Gov Walker

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Listen moron, Walker's people forbade exit polling. Why? Because they were cheating. His win was illegitimate, it's called electoral fraud.

There are many flawed Dems, there are also many Democrats-in-name-only but the RATpublicans rely on lying. What fins are to a fish, lying is to the RATpublicans.

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

I think that Walker would have made a better choice for VP rather than Ryan don't you???

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Walker & Ryan are equally corrupt and selfish conservative % tools so I think they would be the same.


[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

One thing about Walker though, he has the balls to stand up for citizens of his State.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

He stood up for the corp 1% who wants to hurt the citizens by destroying hard working American union workers and attempting to transform the state in a non union state. Doing that inevitably leads to lower wages for the "citizens"

Like every repub politician they care nothing for the regular American that makes up the 99%.


[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Unions are going by the way of the dinosaur and are no longer needed. I worked in a union shop for over 15 years and the only thing I seen the union do is protect the lazy no good worker(s) I work in a shop now (non union) and the pay is comparable to a union based shop. You are also given a raise based on your yearly evaluation.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Oh and another thing. Unions did not 'cause' outsourcing.

Let me ask you this. Do you like the free market? Do you believe in a free market economy?

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Yes I am for the free market and not the Gov regulation market. Unions are only involved with less than 17% of the workforce now and are no longer useful. Some (not all) unions have caused corporations to shift their labor overseas. Private unions although are not as bad as some Public ones. For instance a Public unionized garbage collector in NY makes around 145,000 per year. This is what is bankrupting a lot of States.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Again you're wrong. You do not understand the implications of a free market. The government has been regulating the market since before the Industrial Age. More so as a result of the Industrial Age. Because before that, the economy was very simple. People fended for themselves and lived off the land in a mostly Agrarian Economy. This changed dramatically with Industrialization.

We have never had a free market. There is no first world/industrial economy that has ever existed as a free market. There is no economy I am aware of ever that operated as a free market. You don't know what you're talking about. Going back through history, before capitalism, there was mercantilism. Before that was Fuedalism. Capitalism is born of Fuedalism and Mercantilism. Neither of these were free markets either. A free market has never existed. And if that is what you truly believe in, I suggest you do some reading up on Anarcho-Capitalism/Economic Libertarianism. It's the same thing practically. Those are the only two economic theories I'm aware of that would achieve a free market. And they have nothing what so ever to do with Adam Smith and laisezz-faire classical economic capitalism theory as we know it.

Who knows. Maybe you're an anarchist capitalist and you don't even know it. You should do some reading about it.

'Anything the Gov tries to intervene' in turns into 'disaster'. That's so over the top hyperbole. This is pure stupidity. This is why I must treat you as stupid.

Government does lots of things right. We have clean air, clean water, safe drugs, by and large, so many things that we simply take for granted. You think any of this would happen without the government? Our government built the greatest infrastructure ever. Back when people didn't hate government and tax rates were more progressive. Our government put men on the moon. Which sparked enormous discoveries and inventions, whole new industries were created, that benefitted the economy in so many ways I don't think anyone can begin to measure it.

You don't even make any sense. 'a free market would work as long as it is NOT controlled by the Gov'. Wha??? A free market by definition would be free. By it's very definition it wouldn't be controlled by government. If it were controlled by government, it wouldn't be a free market.

Beats me. Maybe you're an anarcho-capitalist. Anarchists don't believe in government either. Just like you.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Let me ask you this question. Since you say that the Gov is doing a great job at regulating the market then why is there more coming into our Country than our goods going out?? Also why is the Gov not double taxing all the goods coming back into our Country by the Corporations that are doing the outsourcing?? The reason why is the Gov and the corporations all sleep in the same bed.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

ok. Let's have a free market. Let's throw out the Fair Labor Standards Act and put our children to work as wage slaves so we can compete with China. Just like I thought. You have zero idea what you are talking about when you say want a free market. A free market would be truly barbaric.

Unions do not cause labor to move overseas. Again. You do not have even a rudimentary understanding of capitalism. Capital/production always flows to the low cost producer. Just like water finds the lowest point. And our trade policies encourage this. Currently it's mostly China. Where a communist government pays it's workers slave wages. So when you propose a free market, that implies that we 'compete' with China. Throw out the Fair Labor Standards Act. Let's have a free market baby!

Unions paying fair living wages. So that people can raise a family, spend money and save some money, send their kids to college. This is a problem why??? A person making $145k a year is good for the economy. That person is spending their money, buying stuff, keeping demand up, so that more people are not laid off. This is just what the economy needs more of! Not jobs whose wages are being depressed trying to compete with China because of competition from a country whose people are paid slave wages, thanks to our trade policies that encourage 'cheap' imports. Cheap imports are not cheap. They are costing our economy dearly. In the form of living wage jobs. That is what is destroying our economy.

And btw, it's impossible for us to go bankrupt. It's a little thing call 'fiat currency'. Look it up.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

We cant go bankrupt but we can still destroy the currency.

People should be organizing their labor at a rapid rate right now. But nothing is happening. Have the people lost their will?

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

I told another member on here that a free market would work as long as it is NOT controlled by the Gov. We all know how a Gov controlled market does not work. Anything the Gov tries to intervene it, turns into a disaster

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

The free market is an impossible illusion.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

It will work if it is not regulated by the Gov

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

I'm still waiting. Please provide proof for your outlandish claims that Pres. Obama's administration is a 'socialist regime'. And the one about how Pres. Obama is 'partly' to blame for the financial crisis. Really. I'm on the edge of my seat! I can't wait to find out how your distorted and uneducated brain matter conflates itself in order to come to these wholly ridiculous conclusions that have no basis in fact.

Nevermind that we have already proven that you have absolutely no idea what socialism means. Nor do you understand the basics of capitalism.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you are able to function on a daily basis with no factual foundation for your bizarre notions of the world around you, that have no evidence or relation to reality. Are you mentally ill? So that your brain has had a total mental break with reality? Or is it just a poor education?

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

socialism keeps everybody at the same level, poor. the only one to get anything is the government. iran's ayatollah got the people to overthrow the government for socialism and you can see how happy they are. the ayatollah got all the money. and he doesn't share. oops, what happened to share the wealth. our government under obama would do the same thing. if obama believes in share the wealth, why is his grandmother living in a shack and he doesn't seem to help his siblings either. under socialism, your money is his money and his money is his money. not for me or my family. Obama has spent more tax dollars in the tune of 6 trillion, more than any other President. These are things that a mentally ill person like your self would never realize, since you have your head stuck deep in his ass. How is that free obummer phone working out for you???? It is also a shame that you only made it to the third grade loser

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Whether a person works in a small company or large company, wages for similar jobs/similar geographic regions, according to supply/demand theory, should be comparable. This is supposed to be taken care of by the 'market' or supply and demand. And I agree, I don't think the government has much of a role to play here.

Often, if wages are better in a larger organization it has more to do with economies of scale than anything the government does or doesn't do. Small business has a very difficult time competing with large businesses because of economies of scale. It's Economics 101. It's because of capitalism. Not because of the government.

The little guy suffers not because of government. But because of the nature of capitalism. Capital accumulates. The big get bigger. The little guys are swallowed up by the big guys. People get laid off to achieve greater economies of scale. The little guys left have a harder time competing. They get swallowed up. And less competition means downward pressure on wages. Now. Theoretically, and this is also what we see quite realistically, this will go on indefinately until the government steps in and uses Anti-Trust laws.

But this is quite rare especially in the past 30 years or so. Because the right wing has decided that government intervention is always wrong. The 'free market' should correct itself. We should leave monopolies alone to grow even larger. It would be political suicide today for anyone to suggest moving with Anti-trust against any industry in todays political climate. Holy crap man. The Republicans would go freaking ape shit.

And you're a government hater too. So we have monopolies. That's what's hurting the little guys. That's the free market for ya. That's what happens when the government doesn't step in. Because everything the government does is a 'disaster' according to you.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Fine - 'name calling' You cut the crap about Pres. Obama being a socialist, having a 'socialist regime', which you have no evidence for and has no basis in reality, and I won't have to treat you like your stupid and mentally ill.

There is nothing that I am aware of in socialist economic theory that demands that all workers be paid exactly equally. Although, this is one possibility. What it more precisley means, is that, in a socialist system, where the workers own the means of production, the workers elect how profits are distributed. This could mean equal. Or it could mean that the most 'senior' decision makers make no more than, for example, 5x the pay of the least paid worker. This is just an example.

I am not a proponent of socialism. But I know what it is and what it isn't. And progressive taxation, government regulation, government spending, government social welfare programs, none of this is 'socialism'.

But I am a propopnent for more progressive taxation, regulation, and demand side economic policies that would support the middle class.

You do realize that from 1930 through 1970, tax rates were much more progressive. The top marginal tax rate was 90% for much of that time. Yes, there were loopholes. The top effective rates were around 60-70%. Today, millionaires are paying the lowest tax rates in history, where much of their 'income' comes from carried interest taxed at 15%. There is absolutely no sane reason why the wealthy should not be taxed at a higher rates. When through most of they last century they were taxed at much higher rates. Pres. Obama is only proposing they be taxed at the Clinton level, 39%. This is still far far below the average for most of the last century. How you can conflate this as 'socialist', I have no idea. The Paul Ryan budget plan, which was voted unanimously by the Republican House, would give $250K tax breaks to those making over a million dollars.

It was only Reagan who drastically reduced tax rates, most especially on the wealthy. And tripled the debt. That's when the effects of globalization began, jobs moving to Mexico, then China. Middle class wages have been stagnant for over 30 years. Bush Jr. put through more huge tax cuts, mostly favoring the wealthy. The middle class began accumulating debt to mitigate their stagnant wages. To pay for things like health care, and college, which their stagnant wages couldn't afford. The national debt continued to increase.

How about you tell me. Why should the weatlhy get more tax breaks? Do you agree with this. Is there any evidence that it helps the middle class? Here's a hint: It doesn't. The wealthy are not 'job creators'. And there's no evidence that it 'trickles down'. We have 30 years of middle class wage stagnation that tells us this quite clearly.

And we have 30 years of supply side economics, with the vast majority of enormous tax breaks that have gone to the wealthy. Not to mention, lots of other economic policy that favors the wealthy. All of which correlates with their enormously outsized wealth gains.


But yet, are you still going to stick with - Pres. Obama is a 'socialist' because his economic plan would increase the top marginal rate to 39%? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

I am not saying that a welder in a small shop should make the exact wages of one in a bigger industry, but it should be comparable . The reason being is that when the bigger industries give raises, then often the cost of living goes up also and the little guy suffers The only problem with having fair raises across the board is that the Gov would have to intervene to make sure that all business's are complying to it. And this is something that most of us do not want, "more Gov intervention"

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

try going to unskewed poll again,......................top story, electoral vote, romney 342, obama , 196.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Wow, you're clearly confused. We were already running a half trillion dollar deficit per year under the Bush admin. How do you think the debt went from $4T to $9T under Bush? And the current deficit increase is largely the result of decreased revenues due to the jobless recovery. Every serious economist understands this. It's not 'socialism'. It's decreased government revenues resulting from the recession. And government spending cannot be halted that quickly to keep pace with the drastic reduction in revenue as a result of the recession and jobless recovery! Thus, deficit increase.

Even if you're not very educated, it is simple math. And simple economic reality. That you can't halt expeditures as quickly as revenues decline in a recession/jobless recovery. Jeesh. And the reason that spending has increased is largely the result of government social services that are necessary in a jobless recovery. It's not 'socialism'. It's a bad economy.

Why don't you try reading the attached article. It's not very long. It has a picture for you.


I think your confusion lies in the fact that you confuse a bad economy, efforts to mitigate the pain of a bad economy, with 'socialism'.

And you seem to not understand the difference between policies that are in perfect accordance with capitalism, like progressive taxation and social welfare, that are meant to make sure capitalism works for the majority of people - is not that same thing as 'socialism'.

Capitalism operates under sets of policies prescribed by our government. Mainly tax and economic. The only question is - who those policies favor at any given time. When policies favor the majority of people, through more progressive taxation policies, or other economic policy, for example, that's not 'socialism'.

When capitalism operates under more regressive tax policies, like it has for the past 30 years or so, it favors the wealthy. That's a proven fact. When the right wing favors supply side economic policy, like that which was first used by Reagan, then by Bush Jr. - that favors the wealthy. Bush Sr. called this voodoo economics and he was right.

Likewise, demand side economic theories and policies, that which is most generally favored by Democrats, is not 'socialism'. It's simply a different set of economic theories that are perfectly acceptable policies in accordance with capitalism. And has nothing what so ever to do with 'socialism'.

In fact, many times, Republican's support government spending and demand side policies. For example, Medicare Part D by Pres. Bush was voted for by most Republican's in Congress, including Paul Ryan. That program was never funded. Day one it added to the debt. Now, this support from Republican's was only unusual because they love to scream about how it's so dangerous to add to the debt. Yet, they never paid for this program. And, unlike their usual behavior, this program actually benefits the majority. And not just a wealthy few. Like their usual 'tax cuts for the wealthy job creators' schemes. Med.Part D, good program, too bad it was never paid for and just keeps adding to the debt.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

I would not mind having debates with you but I think some of the name calling is uncalled for. I am a college graduate and a robot programmer so I am not exactly stupid. Socialism would only work if everyone was making about the same wage. For instance a welder working in a private shop should make the same as a welder in an auto plant, etc.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

'why is there more coming into our Country than our goods going out?? ' - slave wages and currency manipulation by China

'why is the Gov not double taxing all the goods coming back into our Country by the Corporations that are doing the outsourcing??' - most economists agree that unless we impose drastically high tariffs, it won't make a difference. And imposing drastically high tarriffs would simply start a trade war. China would cut off our exports to their country. For Mitt Romney or anyone else to think they can get 'tough' with China is fucking laughable. Outside of everyone closing their borders and starting a trade war. Mitt Romney thinks he's going to tell Communist China what to do and how to do it?! Really. This is fucking ridiculous.

'the Gov and the corporations all sleep in the same bed.' - that's almost entirely the result of Republicans and right wing Justices on the Supreme Court.

'regulating the market' - the government can't fully protect society from all of the inherent dangers and brutalities of capitalism. Because capitalism is a Darwinian system of winners and losers. But government can play a role in mitigating the pain during times of economic downturns and crises (with government spending, providing for the social safety net), all of which are inevitable parts of capitalism. The only way government could fully protect society from the sometimes painful realities of capitalism is to not have capitalism.

I really think much of your anger and frustration is misplaced. The only thing standing between you and the sheer brute force of capitalism is the government. Capitalism is like radiation. It has great power and can provide us with lots of good things. When it's properly controlled and used wisely.

It's ok for some people to be wealthy. So long as the vast majority of the rest of the people have enough. So long as the policies are such that the system is working for the vast majority of people. When 400 people own the wealth of half the country, there is something very wrong. It's very unhealthy for the economy. This is what right wing upside down regressive tax laws have produced over the past 40 years. Republicans still want more of this. Cut taxes for the wealthy and spend more money on the military. This is the same dance they've been dancing for 40 years. And it's given us 40 years of middle class wage stagnation and the greatest level of wealth inequality since the Gilded Age.

And for you to blame everything that is wrong with the economy now, on Pres. Obama., quite honestly, is simply ridiculous. The problems today have been building for 30 years. And there is no serious economist on the planet who believes these problems can be fixed that quickly. Every recovery in history has been helped by the housing sector. This financial crisis was the housing sector. To believe anyone is going to step into the White House, Mitt Romney, and 'create 12 million jobs' - he's completely full of shit and every serious economist on the planet knows it. First he'll pull 12 million jobs out of his ass then he'll tell Communist China what to do and how to do it. Yeah, that'll happen.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

The only reason your pay is comparable is because of unions you effing moron! Your non union job is paying a comparable wage to a unionized shop, not because they like you. But because of wage competition from union shops. And I suppose if unions were to cease to exist, you think your wages would go up, or even keep pace with inflation. lol. Do you know what right to work laws are and what they are doing to wages? My God you're stupid.

[+] -4 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

My wages will continue to rise and the only way they would go down, is if the village idiot gets another term and puts his socialist regime in place. You (working at Burger King) have never experienced an establishment that has a union

[-] 2 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

or maybe your guy wins, you over-reach, and your system crashes upon itself and we the people rise up and refuse to bail you out once again.

We have little left to loose, as you so cheerfully point out.

Just our families and freedom.

Here is one scenario from history, that may be repeated, if you don't take heed of the advice.


[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Believe it or don't believe it. But you my friend are nothing but dead skin on your way to being shed. And I am financially well off thanks to people like you whom I was able to shed.

'living "off the system"' - if you mean social welfare, in times of economic struggle - I think it's a terrible thing that so many people are unable to find work after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Which is exasperated by 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and wealth inequality that has reached the levels of Gilded Age. Which is the result of failed supply side right wing fuckshitup-onomics.

People that are struggling to make ends meet or find work are not greedy. You have a very distorted view of what greed means. It means having an excessive desire for something over and above that which is needed. Social welfare, providing for some basic necessities of food and shelter is not greed. It is a humane response to the realities of capitalism. An economic system that by it's very nature cannot provide for full employment. Social welfare is for the societal good, given an economic system that is prone to booms and busts, wealth accumulation and cannot provide full employment.

It is certainly not socialism. Clearly you do not have the slightest clue what socialism is. It is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by the workers.

Taxes by their very nature are redistributive. Everyone has known this for centuries. For you to even bring it up as a discussion point shows your clear and dangerous ignorance. The firetruck doesn't stop in front of your house and spray water on it twice a year just for the hell of it - does it??? No. If your house never has a fire, you are paying for someone elses fire to be put out. Redistributive!! Yes you're right!! You're a fucking genius aren't you now. Taxes are redistributive!! Except everyone has already known this for centuries!! And it certainly has nothing what so ever to do with socialism.

Do you know who Adam Smith is? Taxes, social welfare - these things are not anti-thetical to capitalism. They are perfectly acceptable policies as part of laissez-faire style capitalism according to Adam Smith. And if you knew anything at all about 'The Wealth of Nations' and Adam Smith, you would know that he believes these things are necessary for a well functioning capitalist economy.

Adam Smith believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported progressive taxation, government regulation and social welfare.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

Really. Where are you getting your strange and ignorant ideas from? Serious question. I'm very curious how you've developed such strange notions that have absolutely zero basis in fact, definition or reality, that most of the rest of the world understands. How did you get this way? Is it simply a poor education?

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.!!!!!!! You can partly thank the Obama admin for that

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Oh this I must hear. Humor me.

'You can partly thank the Obama admin for that'.

And before I forget - lets just clairfy what you have hopefully learned today. You are correct. Taxes are redistributive. Except Adam Smith and the rest of the educated world has known this for centuries.

Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation. And social welfare. Clearly Adam Smith understood that this was redistributive. These things are not socialism. Progressive taxes and social welfare are perfectly acceptable within capitalism according to Adam Smith.

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Before I chose to no longer work, I made a 6 figure salary for 15 years in the oil/gas/plastics industry. Both union and non union facilities. One of my main responsibilities was productivity and profitability. I can tell you with absolute certainty - the singular goal was to pay people like you as little as possible. The singular goal was to increase productivity so we could shed you. Like pieces of dead skin. That's what you are to your employer. Dead skin. And they'll shed you as soon as they can. Don't worry. They're working on it.

'socialist regime' - provide one example oh stupid one.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Ya as I set behind my pc I can also say that my salary is a 8 figure one. But I guess living "off the system" is okay with you??? Seems like most that are involved with ows are either unemployed or working part time at the very minimal. They only want their village idiot to redistribute the wealth from hard working Americans into their greedy little hands

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

So you are anti union. Surprise surprise. Your anti union comments are not true for the vast majority of union actions.

I support unions over corporation because I know they always look out for the interests of the hard working decent Americans.

Your slanted comments against them are just republican talking points because they favor the corp 1% plutocrats.

[+] -6 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Unions mainly public are bankrupting States.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Holy crap you're an idiot. 30,40 years of unfunded military spending increases, 2 unfunded wars, costing trillions and trillions of dollars, coupled with continual tax decreases - the lowest tax rates in modern history since the Gilded Age a hundred years ago. That's why the debt. Supply side bullshit. Military spending not paid for!! Not only was it not paid for, but it was compounded by tax decreases! Right wing fuckshitup-onomics. Honestly. How stupid can you be? Increase military spending and cut taxes. The most irresponsible fiscal stupidity that is the foundation of the right wing batshit crazy terminally mentally ill Republican Party.

Then blame unions. Let's blame people who are making a living wage and contributing productively to the economy. And poor people! Yeah! Lets blame them too because that makes all the fucking sense in the world.

If you had two brain cells to rub together you might be able to comprehend this.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

Nobody should be selling their votes for pension promises.


[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Well said!!

Hear hear!!

Wethepeop is better described as methe1braincell!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Unions are in the smallest numbers they've been in the private sector in years.

Greedy rich assholes putting all their money in other countries are stealing and hoarding all the wealth. Wake up to the reality.

Corporate cutback for profits theory hard at work. "They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay."

Why is it the rich are the richest they've ever been?

Corporate cutback theory removes consumers from our consumer based economy. Again... wake up to the reality.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

Unions caused the outsourcing

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Here's where the money is really going. The lower 90% haven't had a raise in 40 years.


What is bankrupting the states is all the wealth flows to the top. At the same time taxes have declined for the rich.



Unions more fairly distribute income. http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-decline-of-american-labor-unions/

Look at the facts, don't believe the spin!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The corp 1% who move jobs overseas & reduce state tax revenue are the blame.

The corp 1% who hide assets and evade taxes are to blame for states budget problems.

Corp 1% plutocrats are to blame for keeping workers wages (and therefore state revenue) low.

Not decent hard working Americans.

I stand with those decent hard working American families. You stand with the greedy, selfish, corp 1% plutocrats with their republican tools.

You are a traitor to your class!!! You have no honor!!!

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

The polls were too favorable to Obama. The RATpublicans didn't dare steal the election.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago


The republicans are always trying to steal the election. They don't care what polls say.

Democrats are always trying to steal the election too...

The 1% is very good at strategics which is why they fund both the democrats and the republicans.

They fund both sides keep out candidates that ACTUALLY oppose war, keep in mind Biden voted for war in Iraq, said they had WMD's in 1998, and Obama funded the war while he was a senator under Bush admin. Military spending is still up and crony capitalism is still up. Raytheron, KBR, Wall Street, etc... making a killing on the wars. They fund both sides to make sure monetary reform doesn't happen, they only want it used for the banks and not for society as a whole. They fund both sides to keep the prison population at the world's largest and growing. They fund both sides to keep out those who would actually push for a real living wage. They fund both sides to keep out those who support a large tax increase (more than just a petty 3 or 4%) on the rich money hoarders profiting off the exploitation of the working poor.

Both sides are corrupted by contribution based politics. Both sides are funded by the 1%. Keep telling yourself 1 side is worse... voting for the other side doesn't defeat the 1%. Opening your mind and awakening the people to choose outside of who the TV funding says is our only hope.

Notice how hard THEY worked to get out real candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson. It sends a message.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

Really, even Ross Perot with all his millions couldn't buy himself the presidency, tho he got more votes than any other contemporary 3rd party candidates.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

You need billions to buy the presidency. Millions will only get you to Congress.

Also it's not easy when just about everyone is under the "impression" that you HAVE to vote for either the D or the R

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 5 years ago

Well said TM. Kudos !!

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I don't believe the Democrats have any control over the voting machines, but the Republicans do.

Further the Democrats aren't really an opposition party, they are really an enabling, token party - the Washington Generals to the RATpublican Harlem Globetrotters. The RATpublicans are the power party. The Democrats, their weak sisters - but still the peoples' party.

But there is no equivalence in evil or skullduggery. The republicans are the Treason Party.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

True about the republicans...

And you can keep telling yourself that.about the democrats... Let me know when that little pipe dream becomes a reality and the democrats save the day instead of voting for war with republicans, funding the wars with the republicans, creating laws to further enlarge the prison system with the republicans, do absolutely nothing about minimum wage increase or reforming trade agreements to bring jobs back to America just like the republicans.... or do nothing about reforming monetary policy so it's not just about giving money to Wall Street just like the republicans.

Sure there are a few good gems... like Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson... but that is not the majority.

Most of them are like Joe Biden.... voted for war in Iraq, voted for patriot act, did NOTHING to impeach Bush.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Sadly, the Democrats are currently the enabling weak party. But if Gore had solidified his win, there would have been no 9/11and thus no fraudulent war on terror, no pro-torture policies, little infringement on our civil liberties, no terror drones, etc. I could go on and on.

Dem or Rep does make a difference.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

If that's the case why is Obama continuing the war on terror?

Why is his administration suppressing torture evidence which could be used to charge Bush for war crimes?

Why didn't democrats team together with Dennis Kucinich and support his 35 articles for the impeachment of GWB?

Why is Obama still using drone strikes to bomb countries we're supposedly not at war with?

Why did so many democrats vote with republicans to go to war in Iraq and vote for the patriot act, the TSA, and indefinite detention laws?

Gore and Clinton both thought Iraq had WMD's just like GWB did. Remember the sanctions and bombs in Iraq during their time in office?

Would 9/11 have happened still? You do know Osama uses the sanctions and bombs in Iraq as a leading excuse for his actions on 9/11.

I could go on and on. I'm using facts though.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Where is the fact that Obama is actually commander in chief of the military? Someone once said that the presidency exists not to exercise power but to disguise it.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

So you're saying President Obama is just a huge fraud? I thought you were defending him a moment ago.

I think he's a huge fraud. Glad we can agree on that.

Now how do we keep all the frauds out of the presidency and elect REAL candidates not funded by private interests?

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

No, I never said anything like that. I think the system is a fraud. The power of the presidency has been reduced ever since Roosevelt. The last true president we had was JFK.

I fully intend to vote for Obama. The slice of power that presidents still hold is much safer in his hands, in my opinion.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Even if its still a net loss for the entire world. You are quite the activist.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

If the system is a fraud and Obama has zero power in the wars why isn't he saying anything about how corrupt it is or tell the people... I have no power in regards to war...?

So he's either a fraud who has no power in regards to the wars and chooses not to say anything about it or he supports the bombs and theft of civil liberties. Choose one.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Do you think things you want and dems have fought for are being blocked by repubs?

Are you familiar with the filibuster?

Protest against the pols who are obstructing the min wage, etc..

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

There has not been a filibuster of minimum wage increase the entire time Bush and Obama have been in office.

There has been no push for a minimum wage increase from the majority of either party.

Only a few... like Dennis Kucinich.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Only one party has ever pushed for the minimum wage, Only one party has ever fought against it.

You wanna guess which is which?

Say it! Say it! Be honest, Non partisan and SAY IT! If you don't then clearly you are serving the republicans!

transparent partisanship!

LMFAO. Like shootin fish in a barrel! Amateur!

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Actually the last raise was voted on in 2007, with a 94-3 vote in the Senate passing it, and Bush signing it.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Only one party has fought for it, and only one party has fought against it.

Your stat is irrelevant because that was a battle between dems who wanted it, and repubs who didn't. How they voted in the end doesn't change the battle lines, or the combatants.

You're are simply trying to obfuscate the truth with a misleading vote that looks like repubs wanted the minimum wage.

Do you remember what the repubs WERE supporting and what they extracted from dems in that battle?

Let me here you say it.

Or will you attempt to protect your repubs again.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"How they voted doesnt matter. "

Just like the voting record for the Iraq war too...right? Doesnt matter. One is good, the other is evil, end of story. You are a PR firms fuckin dream.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I am telling you the1st priority is the motherfuckin republican fear mongering, war mongering rhetoric that perpeuates the war footing.

The voting records can be discussed I can say I don't like their votes but that doesn't change the massive effort to scare the shit out of the American people.

If you ain't actively workin against the pols who are spewing that fear then you ain't really interested in stopping the drone strikes, rights violations or the war on terror.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I am, and thats why you get slammed so much here, because you are defending indef detention and bombing people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I am against indef det, and the drone bombings! to say otherwise is just more of your lies.

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives, & protest against all war, and rights violations.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

ignore facts for blatant hate cool beans

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What "blatant hate"?

What facts did I ignore.? The repubs fought against the 2007 min wage increase as they always do.

Are you ignoring that fact?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Voting for it isnt fighting it. Just like the Iraq war vote.

Ofcourse you dont hate republicans. You're a NWO, war loving Republican.

You post opinions, and baseless crap, 24/7. How are your rental houses doing?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What? make some sense.

Attempting to find out my personal info is inappropriate and reflects the impotence of your arguments.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

you hate Republicans just say it get it out of your system you'll feel much better

You ignored the fact that there was more than 3 republicans in office and then a president signed it who also was a republican.

Im not ignoring any facts because you haven't stated any

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I do not hate republicans.

And the fact I already mentioned is that republicans always fight against min wage increases ( just as they did in 2007). Dems are the only ones who ever fight for min wage increases.

Those are the facts you ignore.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

How have dems tried to steal an election?

Seems more of your dishonestefforts at false equality. Trying hard to convince everyone the parties are the same.

They ain't!!! One has always been the war monger. The other always accused of being weak on defense.

Give it up.

The 1% is giving 4 - 1 to repubs. Dems are getting massive amounts of money from reg people. You ain;t kiddin anyone with your sorry efforts of trying to drag dems down to the pro 1% conservative mud repubs live in.


[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Billions of dollars funding Democrats and Republicans trying to buy the election.............

Or do you forget that this is a reality?

Money in politics is stealing elections.

Goldman Sachs is funding both sides. Raytheon, KBR, and Wall Street still making a killing on war profits.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The massive right wing/ALEC effort at dem voter suppression is attempting to steal elections.

Money in politics? Yeah we're all against that. But your grasping at straws. Trying to create some dem election stealing evidence so your repubs crimes don't look so bad. LMFAO! Whatta joke.

The consulting group Strategic Allied who were in trouble under a different name in 2004 and got in trouble again for registration fraud a few weeks ago were hire by Romney and several repub state admins.

This is attempting to steal elections.

You got anything like that on dems.? No? because they ain;t stealin elections. Dems wantto expand the voter turnout. YOUR repubs and the 1% desperately need to minimize the turnout because they hate, minorities, immigrants, LGBT, are against womens rights, & elderly earned benefits.

Like your boy Lindsey Graham said " we ain't creating enough angry white men" to win future elections.



[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

There is nothing Republican about Trevor


[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Every person on this site has certain things they belive in that can be traced to the global takeover, by cerain talking points.

I can tie the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians and the Anarchists through various talking points from oppposition.

I think the bottom line is that we need thinkers, which Trevor has proven to be very capable of.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Says his closeted republican friend.


[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Ur an idiot. And quite embarrassing. Go back to your cave.

If everyone thought like you, our situation would be hopeless.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Insults show how impotent your arguments are.



[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Yeah I hear you. Maybe Trev ain't, maybe he is. But he is clearly unfair in his criticism of Dems & Pres Obamas foreign policy.

Trev mostly gives repubs a pass on thefear mongering, war mongering that is atthe root of our current drone bombings, rights violations.

If Trev truly wanted to end these things then he should recognize who is perpetuating the fear mongering posture that facilities these problems.

Protest Pres Obamas drone bombings, & rights volations. Also replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Ya, thats great. Calling people who have lost faith in the two party system closet republicans is a great trick.

Theres a reason I told the Dem party to screw off this election. 3 years in and we are still killing. I will not endorse war.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Who has called anyone who lost faith in the2 party system a closet republican?. Not ME! I call people who engage in unfair criticism of one party a partisan, I call people who neglect to criticise the other a closet supporter.

I have lost faith in the 2 party system.

I recognize that when it comes to war one party has always been the war mongering party, One always criticized for being weak on defense. One party has replaced the red scare war mongering with war on terror fear mongering, One party is struggling to maintain that fear mongering rhetoric while the Dems are ratcheting down on that fear mongering.

If you pretend that ain't happening and you give the repubs a pass, then I submit you are a closet repub. Ain'tgot nothing to do with you lie that my accusation is about "losing faith in the 2 party system" But that is just another in a long line of lies you resort to because your arguments cannot stand up to the truth.

So until the new political system emerges we must replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Thats how desensitized you are, due to your refusal to make a stand. You cant even see the bombs right in front of your face, the constant war talk that dominates both sides.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I take a stand against the drone bombings and the war on terror. I'm against them.

You have refused to take a stand against the continued republican war mongering that we must end in order to end all the war on terror activity.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Why don't you take a stand on what the GOP has done to Florida?

Why don't you take a stand on assholian laws like stand your ground.

OWS did........You defended it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

State of the Union address was filled with war talk. Both debates so far have been filled with it.

Neither candidate will say they will end the wars by Christmas tonight. They could, but they wont.

And thats just how you want it. Its ok, there are plenty of people who want to blow up the world. Not too many of us are 100% against it. Its much more lonely in my corner than yours.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The Pres has not engaged in the fear mongering that repubs have been using since they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

You are grasping at straws.

Just today repubs are panicked and squealing about how Pres Obama won't call it terrorism, Obama is playing down Al Qaeda, He is weak on terror.

Get rid of those wackjobs replace with peace loving progressives. It's the only way

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Laughing your ass about the bombings now?

Keep talking, you are only digging yourself deeper. Focus on the talking points instead of ending the actual bombs. Awesome. We are pretty sure you are the closet republican.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I'm laughing at YOU!

My contention that we must recognize the republican fear mongering rhetoric is NOT dem talking points.

None talk about it. They can't talk about. this country has been brainwashed by the very fear mongering to see these points as being weak on terror and then a dem will never get re elected.

And the dems must get re elected if they are to succeed in declaring an end to the repub created war on terror. as well as begin the work of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

So you are wrong again. There are no dem talking points regarding the repub fear mongering rhetoric. The effort to ratchet down the rhetoric must be done under the radar or the 'weak on terror' campaign attack will sink the re election efforts.

Get it?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Except there's Ooooops!

Your Neolibe(R)tarian war buddies are hard at work making a profit from it.


Just like I TOLD YOU.

It's the Libe(R)tarians that lie through their teeth.

They really are the very worst this system has to offer.

It really is the neolibe(R)tarians that are buying up our government, one state at a time and all at once. and you spend time at Bircher sites?


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

So you advocate talking less but bombing more. Got it. Nice job Bushie.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I know we must stop the repub war talk IN ORDER to stop the repub created war on terror.

And you know it too!!!

But you are a closet repub so you can't acknowledge the realty of your repubs insidious evil efforts.


[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Bombing 6 natinos in 4 years is not ratcheting it down.

Your denying this only further proves you are pro war and very happy right now.

Did you work for Bush?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Bombing 6 countries in 4 years has nothing to do with ratcheting down the fear mongering rhetoric. But you know that. This is weak attempt at obfuscation. How neo con of you.

Ratcheting down the fear mongering rhetoric is never using the term 'war on terror', It is eliminating the color coded 'threat level'. It is minimizing the terrorist threat by not lifting them up to an existential threat like repubs still try to do. This is what dems are doing.

Terrorism is NOT an existential threat!!!! Never was. Repubs lied.

I am against the drone bombings! I am against the repub created war on terror. We must all protest against that.

I know the only way to stop it is by 1st ratcheting down the fear mongering rhetoric that repubs are still pushing.

So because repubs ARE engaging in the fear mongering war posturing and Dems ain't, we must replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Dems started Vietnam. It was a Dem president that Nuked Japan.

Republicans started Iraq and Afghan.

Dems started Libya.

Biden and Hillary and Reid all voted for the Iraq War, and they are the top people with Obama right now.

No one is giving the Republicans a pass. Its obvious where they are right now. We are simply trying to keep the people like you who slobber all over people who sign orders allowing the detention of anyone from destroying our movement.

Obama has bombed 6 nations in 4 years. And you love it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

You are a simpleton.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

You don't speak for me! I do not love bombing countries. I am against it!!

You strain to attack dems by going back 70 years. While you ignore the most important point I have repeatedly brought up.

The fear mongering rhetoric of the repub war mongers! Your repubs have replaced the red scare war mongering w/ 'war on terror' fear mongering.

They started it when they exploited the 9/11 attacks and continue to use it to pressure for an invasion of Iran. (Dems resisted) They continue to use it to criticize the lack of anti terror rhetoric by dems (who know we must ratchet down that war rhetoric)

This is the root of our war footing. this is what Dems have begun to ratchet down, This is what repubs are struggling to continue.

This is what you ignore. Your ignoring of this critical root to our drone bombing, civil rights violations is you giving the repubs a pass!

You throw around dem war activity from decades ago but you neglect the repub fear mongering roots to our current problems.

You are transparently pro republican partisan. You ain't foolin me boss.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I have angered some closet repubs.

They care about the numbers. They are powerless to engage with civil substantial fact based arguments so if they don't just insult me they vote me down.

Meaningless, useless. childish.

I laugh at their immaturity.

Mooo Ha ha ha ha haha.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"Closet Republicans"

Another tactic of the mascot, label the real activists who dont fall in line as a threat.

You're just as bad as Bush labeling people against the war as unpatriotic.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago


You are against Social Security right? You do give repubs a pass on creating & perpetuating the fear mongering that facilitates all our foreign policy failures.

So sell your BS somewhere else. I don't buy it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

What do you think got me to register as a Dem to begin with? 9/11 fear mongering and two wars.

You wouldnt know what a antiwar activist looked like if you got slapped upside the head by one. Veterans for Peace is an org you should look into, to get out of your box, learn how bad the Dems AND Reps have been with this.

I've been to plenty of rallies with them, and we are in agreement.

But you say you are ok with killing, as long as its not as much as Bush. What a patiot.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I never said I am ok with killing! I ain't! That is you lying about my position. And that you lie about my position (neo con tactic!) shows that your position cannot stand up to the truth.

You offer unprovable facts about your past activity. I ain't interested. I judge you by the comments you make here!

And those comments have clearly been pro republican partisan.


[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

dems are against photo voter ID. why? so that can commit fraud.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Dems are against repub last minute effort to add new voter id requirements. Right before the election so they can suppress dem voting groups.

So no dems ain't against voter id laws. they're against repub schemes to cheat & steal the election.

Try again.

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

the reqirements are not new or last minute. dems have been fighting photo voter ID laws for years.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago


[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Very true... but don't worry... the Oligarchy is also conspiring and funding Obama.

They do this to keep out candidates that oppose war, interventionism, patriot act, indefinite detention, the world's largest political prisoner system as well as to keep out candidates that work for minimum wage increases, reforming trade agreements to bring jobs back to America, and a monetary policy that works for the people and not just the banks.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Nothing you say is untrue, however Romney is a pathological liar surrounded by neocons. Things aren't good now, but they could be a heck of a lot worse.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I full agree. Romney is a pathological liar. But all 4 of these men are warmongers and frauds who serve private interests over the interests of the people.

The 1% are fully in control

And Obama and Biden want you to think they had nothing to do with Iraq even though Biden not only voted for that war but he was preaching WMD's and Iraq being a threat all the way since the late 90's before Bush Jr. was even in office. And Obama continually voted to fund that war under Bush as well. So it seems that all 4 are really just insane people with insane objectives.... John Lennon was right.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

John Lennon: "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Oh we are all missing the great John Lennon.

But for the right wingers who hounded him, and those at the center of all our current problems I suppose we should say:

"Time wounds all heels" JL

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

And then he got shot. He was building a movement based on inspiration.

"Tried to give the power to the have-nots.... and then came the shot."


[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago


[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago


That's our ace in the hole, left by our forefathers, against tyranny.



[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

AM, you left one thing out in the OP:

"Owners Of Electronic Voting Machine Company Are Romney Super-Fans

. . . . Hart InterCivic is a national provider of election voting systems that are used in swing-states Ohio and Colorado, . . . Private equity firm H.I.G. Capital, LLC bought out a “significant” portion of Hart in July of 2011, and now the majority of Hart’s board directors are employees of H.I.G. . .

H.I.G., in turn, has ties to Bain & Co. and Mitt Romney directly"


"Vote counting company tied to Romney" http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4725


[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 5 years ago

--------Calling on American universities to conduct immediate independent election polls, and publish results. Also immediate investigation of Bain Capital ties to voting machine companies.--------

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Absolutely, any time independent exit polls are disallowed (as in Walker's recall election in Minn.) that's a flag that electoral fraud is being planned.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Ancientmariner, you've stayed at 203 for a while. Are you still around, were you banned again (why), where else do you post?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

In a sense polls are more important than actual elections -- for electoral results to be believable (and considered legitimate) they have to be in accord with polls. However if the polls are close, the RATpublicans will cheat with their machines.

So there is a very strong motive to slant and cheat on the polls. How can we counter that?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

One way to counter this - VOTE D

And the Democratic party must be ready in court to seize questionable machines
FYI - an experienced programmer can rig these computers -
for example to switch 1% of the D votes to R votes every hour on the hour

The only way to stop it is a paper audit trail
print every vote as it is entered in the computer & put it in a locked box to check later

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Everyones out to get you.......sigh

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Not everyone, only you pod people freaks.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 5 years ago

Yes. Agree that it is shaping up to be very close if one believes the polls. I am getting more pessimistic, and thinking that the R voter suppression effort will probably make the difference. But I am from Florida and am aware of voter suppresion effort here, and remember how W won over Gore by just a few votes. Rick Scott and his R cronies might duplicate that again this year.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

I got this spam email from Josh Mandel who is running for Senate in Ohio. Go figure:

Dear Patriot,

Early voting has begun in Ohio.

And the Obama campaign is turning out Democrat voters by the busload.

Their strategy is simple.

They want to "bank" enough early votes now that they'll have won Ohio and the election before Election Day.

Because if Obama wins Ohio, it's game over.

But there is a way to stop Obama. And I need your help to do it.

My name is Josh Mandel and I am the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

I'm in the fight of my life against Obama's close ally, Sherrod Brown. Brown has supported Obama's agenda 95% of the time, so it's no surprise that Obama and Brown are working hand in hand to turn out the vote in Ohio.

I need conservatives like you to stand with me and stop the Obama-Brown machine in Ohio.

As a Marine who served two tours in Iraq and as the current Treasurer of Ohio, I've learned two important lessons for this campaign:

First, a Marine never retreats. We hold our ground. And today that ground is Ohio.

Second, Washington has a spending problem that won't be fixed unless we defeat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate by sending Brown into early retirement.

Sherrod Brown has been a thorn in the side of conservatives for too long. He was the key 60th vote for ObamaCare. He's voted 189 times to raise taxes. And he even went on the floor of the U.S. Senate to call opponents of union reform "Nazis."

Not only has Sherrod Brown been named the "Most Liberal" senator in America, he's what's wrong with Washington. Ohio voters have soured on Brown. But we still have to do the hard work of getting out the vote to beat him.

Turning out Republican voters to defeat Brown will deliver a knock out blow to Obama's chances of winning Ohio.

I need your help immediately. Click here to join the fight.

The Obama-Brown machine is turning out record numbers of voters in the Democrat strongholds of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Columbus as I write this. They are banking tens of thousands of votes.

To stop them from building an insurmountable lead, I need patriotic Americans who love this country to stand shoulder to shoulder with this Marine. Stand with me today.

Your donation today will be used to get our voters to the polls today.

Everything hinges on Ohio -- both the U.S. Senate and the White House.

With your help, I can beat both Sherrod Brown and Barack Obama here. And when I go to Washington, I will lead the fight to bury the Obama-Brown legacy of bloated government and binge spending.

I'm counting on your support.

For America,

Josh Mandel Conservative Republican for U.S. Senate in Oh

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Sorry to break it to ya bub, but the oligarchy is going to get what they want regardless of which one of two 100+ year old parties has the balance of power.

Thats the game. And you thinking its a l vs r thing instead of us vs them thing is exactly how they want you to think.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Totally so true. Actually Polls say Obama is already so far ahead in electoral votes, the election is already virtually a done deal. I say we ought to be worrying not so much about the election (but certainly do go out and vote for your man), but rather start thinking about how "we" should proceed after the election.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Exactly. My view is that by the time the election comes about, all the work is already done. Over the last 4 years, by no suprise, the corporations have kicked out asses in efforts. Which is why this election is going to be no different than past ones.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

give a look at unskewedpolls.com

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Interesting. However, google around for electoral maps. See http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map for example. Although each map is different, they all ( at least all the ones I've seen so far) show Obama well ahead. Liars must be figuring, figures might be lying, and people (including me) see only what they want to see. But in either case, as hchc points out, the evil oligarchy will have their man into the White House.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

huffpo swings wildly to the left. its biased and not reliable.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

True, but everybody else says the same.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

go to UnSkewedPolls.com

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

I did. The polls show Obama either tied or behind Romney in popular vote, but well ahead of Romney in electoral college votes. the electoral college is what matters. Basically, Obama needs to only win Ohio to win the election, and he is slated to win there, but Romney needs to win all swing States to win. The probability favors Obama. Vegas is even placing bets on Obama.

I'm not particularly an Obama fan. but those are the numbers.

The only question is what are you going to do when Obama wins?

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 5 years ago

unskewed has romney at 301 to obama at 237 in the electoral vote.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Hmmm, interesting. I question if this is a credible web site, but time will tell. We will know which poll was correct in November.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 5 years ago

As the second debate nears, Romney is surging in the polls. Bye Obama maybe he can get a job on the "price is right" or something like that. The "view" would probably keep him as a regular also.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Romney is not going to win. Obama is a better bullshitter, the banks are still robbing and bombs are still dropping. No need to replace at this point. Too many secrets for unneccesarry turnover.

[-] -3 points by Faraujo (-4) 5 years ago

I think it is more that people realize that Obama doesn't know what he is doing and disagree with his policy of income redistribution. People vote with their pocketbook.

[+] -4 points by Clicheisking (-210) 5 years ago

And here it is. If your messiah loses it just can't be because the majority in this nation don't want his incompetent bullshit anymore. I knew this was coming. You leftists are getting so predictable.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You don't belong here. Please take your Eva Braun stills (at least the ones not stuck together) and hit the road.