Republicans/Libertarians, party of British Petroleum, not American people [Archive]

Valley Oak

06-17-2010, 09:18 PM

Hardball with Chris Matthews (https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#37766050)

Let's see how much money BP donates to Republican candidates this November so that they can continue to get away with murder. And see how BP buys the US Senate and House of Reps. After all, the conservative US Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited campaign donations by corporations, both foreign and domestic.

Perhaps after this November we will need to rename our country the "United States of British Petroleum & Associates" (associates like the Bush family, and other petroleum interests).

And when we get another petroleum president (like father and son Bush), we can expect to continue spilling our children's blood in the interests of petroleum in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

LenInSebastopol

06-18-2010, 06:32 PM

In all honesty I do not know the answer to this:
Is there a way to find out how much BP gave to individual folks that ran last term?

cotatikid

06-19-2010, 05:11 AM

We have already got another petroleum prez! If Obomba wasn't a witting tool of BP, and the other major players, the "big swinging dicks" in the Corporatocracy, he would have never been allowed to participate in presidential politics. He would have been marginalized, trivialized and demonized like Kucinich or Nader!

Those who voted for this scallawag are beginning to realize that they have been bamboozled again. The "hopium" is not providing the facile escape from reality the way it was easily able to before the inauguration.

Legions of progressives, Independents and Democrats, who thought they heard "change", are now discerning that the word was actually, "chains"!

Of course there are differences between the Demonics and the Repugnants, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fool almost everyone!

Clancy

06-19-2010, 09:32 AM

You are correct, and our fellow progressives and democrats are as resistant to hearing this as Bush's supporters were to hearing the truth about Bush.

Down deep, we're all still fervently hoping that the noble America we were lead to believe in from grade school on still exists, despite all evidence to the contrary.

We have already got another petroleum prez!

Clancy

06-19-2010, 09:39 AM

In all honesty I do not know the answer to this:
Is there a way to find out how much BP gave to individual folks that ran last term?

You're going to love this
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html)

podfish

06-19-2010, 01:40 PM

no need to wait. You're describing the status quo as it has been for a while. I can't say it's surprising, but it's depressing, to hear a lot of the attitudes expressed by everyone from national politicians to local politicians to local residents. The inertia of everyone's way of life is so extreme that I'm starting to think this will end up having about the same effect on policy as the Ixtoc blowout or the oil embargo of the 70s. The money from the oil business is so big that it either corrupts directly, or to give politicians the benefit of the doubt, seems so essential to our economy that no-one will risk any serious changes. The range of people screaming about just the moratorium on drilling that Obama's imposed is amazing - the locals need their jobs, the local businesses need their cash-flow, the megacorps are just going to move more equipment overseas..... This is why 'big opportunities' get missed. Same as with the banking business a little while ago, and with the oil business repeatedly since it started.

Hardball with Chris Matthews (https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#37766050)

Let's see how much money BP donates to Republican candidates this November <snip> And see how BP buys the US Senate and House of Reps. <snip> And when we get another petroleum president (like father and son Bush), we can expect to continue spilling our children's blood in the interests of petroleum in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Hotspring 44

06-19-2010, 03:04 PM

no need to wait.
For what?:hmmm:

Hotspring 44

06-19-2010, 03:25 PM

Big SmileOh, after re-reading that post I think I get it.:idea:

For what?:hmmm:

LenInSebastopol

06-19-2010, 04:26 PM

Down deep, we're all still fervently hoping that the noble America we were lead to believe in from grade school on still exists, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Down deep, at this point, we will never find a noble American politician. It is up to US to be that person and elect folks of character, really.
It matters little what party they "belong" to, IMO. We have to be 'that guy'.

LenInSebastopol

06-19-2010, 04:48 PM

You're going to love this
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html)

You are right, I did enjoy it, but in my cynical dotage I did find it not so....provocative anymore. Rather de rigueur for all current politicians, no?
All tolled, what $77K among friends, eh? And it's not the principle, as we are writing of politicians!

Clancy

06-19-2010, 05:26 PM

You are right, I did enjoy it, but in my cynical dotage I did find it not so....provocative anymore. Rather de rigueur for all current politicians, no?
All tolled, what $77K among friends, eh? And it's not the principle, as we are writing of politicians!

The 77k is just the tip of the iceburg, as the article says, BP spent $15.9 million last year alone on lobbyists — trying to influence energy policy. How does one business spend $16 million on lobbyists?

Down deep, at this point, we will never find a noble American politician. It is up to US to be that person and elect folks of character, really.
It matters little what party they "belong" to, IMO. We have to be 'that guy'.

Be what guy? Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president.

Hotspring 44

06-19-2010, 05:45 PM

The 77k is just the tip of the iceburg, as the article says, BP spent $15.9 million last year alone on lobbyists — trying to influence energy policy. How does one business spend $16 million on lobbyists?

Be what guy? Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president.

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

Clancy

06-19-2010, 06:03 PM

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

LenInSebastopol

06-19-2010, 07:20 PM

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

First, we never had a democracy. Why that internet rumor is so strong is almost beyond me to figure out. Where does one learn that? And why do folks continue to promulgate that?

Clancy

06-19-2010, 07:41 PM

First, we never had a democracy. Why that internet rumor is so strong is almost beyond me to figure out. Where does one learn that? And why do folks continue to promulgate that?

It's instilled in us from birth and perpetually advertised.

You yourself just said that we need to "elect folks of character".

Hotspring 44

06-19-2010, 10:50 PM

...Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

What about the railroad crony's in the 1800s?:thinking: Oh yeah, they were actually in office then.

:dunno:I wonder if, instead of calling it getting "railroaded", we could call it getting tared, greased, oil-rolled, or (?).

LenInSebastopol

06-20-2010, 05:36 AM

It's instilled in us from birth and perpetually advertised.

Yeah, folks lie to us from the git-go, but then why continue when we are adults? It ain't a democracy. Period!

IYou yourself just said that we need to "elect folks of character".

No contradiction there. We do vote and send folks to represent us.
I suppose you are saying WE have no character or virtues like integrity, honesty, thrift, loyalty, discernment, accountability, fortitude, liberability, meekness, resoluteness moderation, even chastity? And so we vote in greedy whores? You may be on to something there!
I'll get back to you!

Valley Oak

06-20-2010, 06:34 AM

We need to change from a two party system to proportional representation and a multiparty system, perhaps with a 5% threshold. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post and single member districts.

Admittedly, achieving this will be difficult and long in the coming.

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

Clancy

06-20-2010, 08:34 AM

...I suppose you are saying WE have no character or virtues like integrity, honesty, thrift, loyalty, discernment, accountability, fortitude, liberability, meekness, resoluteness moderation, even chastity? And so we vote in greedy whores? You may be on to something there!
I'll get back to you!

As you know, that's not what I said at all. I said;

"Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president."

You either grossly misunderstood, or you intentionally twisted what I said.

In either case, you consistently display a pitiful lack of intellectual integrity, and I'm going back to ignoring you.

Hotspring 44

06-20-2010, 10:34 AM

That is answer to the the what,. But anyone have good ideas on hows to do that?

We need to change from a two party system to proportional representation and a multiparty system, perhaps with a 5% threshold. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post and single member districts.

Admittedly, achieving this will be difficult and long in the coming.

Valley Oak

06-20-2010, 11:40 AM

That is answer to the the what,. But anyone have good ideas on hows to do that?
That is the perfect question, Hotspring!

I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)(Californians for Electoral Reform (https://www.cfer.org)), which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We have helped to implement legislative reform on the electoral process in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Diego, Davis, and other areas. The focus of our efforts has been Instant Run-off voting (IRV, Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRV)). However, IRV, specifically, is applicable to single member districts or other types of single seat races, which is ultimately not the real goal but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Your excellent question reminds me of when I attended a public presentation at Sonoma State University given by political scientist, Michael Parenti (Michael Parenti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti)). Someone in the audience, during question time, asked him what a person could do to make a difference. Parenti's response was quite simply that it is far more productive to work with others (such as a focused organization or a group of people) than to work alone. It is assumed that there are clear exceptions to this but as a general rule of thumb, your progress is almost always multiplied many times if you cooperate with others towards a common goal. You just need to find an organization out there and regarding electoral reform, and there are many. All you have to do is google the subject your interested in, hopefully in your area, and you should come up with more groups than you can shake a stick at.

The feat of electoral reform is a steep climb. You will have more luck trying to climb Mount Everest. Any substantial reform will take decades so you will have to work hard and not expect any big rewards for years, which is more sacrifice than what most people can tolerate. Susan B. Anthony died before she saw women win the Constitutional right to vote in 1920. Anthony was 86 years old when she died in 1906. But the posthumous victory 14 years later was due in large part to her life's work and others like her.

Nonetheless, CfER has had many victories, as I mentioned in the first paragraph. We got a bill passed in the California State Senate and Assembly, which made it to Governor Schwarzenegger and got vetoed by him. But even that was a victory for one of our efforts to come so close to statewide reform. The next governor of California might sign our bill the next time we get it to his or her desk.

Furthermore, electoral reform must take place first in local governments, then the state, and finally, the nation. That will take decades. As you can see, we have already had success in several local jurisdictions. After several years, millions of Californians will have had first hand experience with IRV and talking about it won’t seem so obscure to Sacramento politicians and the state’s electorate. But first we need to get reform implemented in more local governments. Meanwhile, we can keep knocking on the doors of our representatives in Sacramento for statewide reform.

Did I answer your question? Anymore questions?

Edward

Hotspring 44

06-20-2010, 01:17 PM

Valley Oak

06-20-2010, 03:07 PM

There are a few observations:

With preference voting (IRV or Ranked Choice Voting, etc), your vote cannot go to anyone unless you rank that person with a number (the number indicates your level of preference for any given candidate). If you don't rank a candidate, let's say George Bush, then Bushy boy cannot get your vote. You simply leave the box next to his name empty. That's it.

If there are 5 candidates running for the same seat, let's say, Mr. X, Mr. Y, Ms. Z, Ms. A, and Ms. T, you can rank each one with a number according your preference. Let's say you like Ms. T the most and Ms. A as the next best candidate. You write a number '1' next to Ms. T and the number '2' next to Ms. A.

Let's say you cannot stand the sight of Mr. X, Mr. Y, or Ms. Z. You simply don't write anything at all and your vote does not go to them. If your 1st and 2nd choices don't win then your vote disappears. No one gets your vote. But if either Ms. T or Ms. A won the contest then that means that your vote helped them win (conversely, without your vote, it is quite possible that the winner would not have won, but this happens only in contests within small organizations, such as a nonprofit voting for its board members, etc).

Keep in mind that this is for a single seat, such as POTUS, governor, mayor, or a congressional seat (e.g. Woolsey's district, etc). Not to be confused with more complex voting systems where, for example, a voter must elect 5 people out of a group of, let's say, 12 candidates, in which case, a 'cumulative voting' method would be used (Cumulative voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting)).

Another observation is that what your are talking about reminds me of NOTA (None of the above). This is like a dead horse that has been beaten mercilessly into the ground for ages. I remember attending the Green Party of Sonoma County meetings in downtown Santa Rosa several years ago and it was a sore subject because most folks found no value in including NOTA as an option in a list of candidates for internal party elections. I was not part of the lengthy meetings where NOTA was hashed out and rehashed but I did come to learn about it and NOTA was dropped as an acceptable "option" on voting for candidates. The Green Party officially endorses proportional representation and IRV but does not support NOTA. Apparently, only a minority wanted NOTA.

The other observation I have is that a negative vote, voting against someone, reminds me of when Pagan coven votes on admitting a new coven member, all of the coven brothers and sisters vote yes or no on that candidate. From what I understand, though, the election must be unanimous. A coven is like a family. That is the only example that I am recalling right now where negative votes are counted against a candidate. In any case, voting for someone you like in an election for public office has the same effect as voting against someone you don't like. But if you don't like anyone, then we are back at the NOTA debate.

I think the best possible solution is to have write-in candidates, like they have had in the past in San Francisco. That's how Tom Amiano became prominent in an election contest some years ago, can't remember which one it was exactly. But I think that write-in candidates offer a much better solution than NOTA.

I'll be honest, I think there is an excruciatingly absurd element in NOTA, because among other things, it implies that we can have no one elected as a result, and well...I don't know. I suppose that we could entertain situations where that might be desirable or if someone has a nihilist attitude and hates all politics no matter what then that's what they would prefer. But I don't think it's a very serious or viable approach to government.

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combinations of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote? Or one positive vote and 3 detest votes? Etc?

Did I miss anything or did I cover all of the points?

I like your answer.

I read the Wikipedia article. I only see one (somewhat major) flaw in that design otherwise, I think it is excellent.
That flaw is there is no vote against somebody.
I think each voter should have one first-place preference and one no vote. Then I think the rest of the aforementioned preferential system would work in a fair and equitable way. But without that no vote, somebody that you absolutely detest could actually use your vote to get elected, therefore because of that, I don't think that voters would go for that in the first place to initiate a system without the no vote.

LenInSebastopol

06-20-2010, 04:08 PM

As you know, that's not what I said at all. I said;
"Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president."
You either grossly misunderstood, or you intentionally twisted what I said.
In either case, you consistently display a pitiful lack of intellectual integrity, and I'm going back to ignoring you.

Well, I thought I had my tongue firmly in cheek when I wrote that and assumed you got that. I did not mean to be so subtle; sorry. Lack of good humor on our parts.
Now go back to the 'ignore' fan club and write on.

Hotspring 44

06-20-2010, 08:21 PM

There are a few observations:

With preference voting (IRV or Ranked Choice Voting, etc), your vote cannot go to anyone unless you rank that person with a number (the number indicates your level of preference for any given candidate). If you don't rank a candidate, let's say George Bush, then Bushy boy cannot get your vote. You simply leave the box next to his name empty. That's it.

If there are 5 candidates running for the same seat, let's say, Mr. X, Mr. Y, Ms. Z, Ms. A, and Ms. T, you can rank each one with a number according your preference. Let's say you like Ms. T the most and Ms. A as the next best candidate. You write a number '1' next to Ms. T and the number '2' next to Ms. A.

Let's say you cannot stand the sight of Mr. X, Mr. Y, or Ms. Z. You simply don't write anything at all and your vote does not go to them. If your 1st and 2nd choices don't win then your vote disappears. No one gets your vote. But if either Ms. T or Ms. A won the contest then that means that your vote helped them win (conversely, without your vote, it is quite possible that the winner would not have won, but this happens only in contests within small organizations, such as a nonprofit voting for its board members, etc).

Keep in mind that this is for a single seat, such as POTUS, governor, mayor, or a congressional seat (e.g. Woolsey's district, etc). Not to be confused with more complex voting systems where, for example, a voter must elect 5 people out of a group of, let's say, 12 candidates, in which case, a 'cumulative voting' method would be used (Cumulative voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting)).

Another observation is that what your are talking about reminds me of NOTA (None of the above). This is like a dead horse that has been beaten mercilessly into the ground for ages. I remember attending the Green Party of Sonoma County meetings in downtown Santa Rosa several years ago and it was a sore subject because most folks found no value in including NOTA as an option in a list of candidates for internal party elections. I was not part of the lengthy meetings where NOTA was hashed out and rehashed but I did come to learn about it and NOTA was dropped as an acceptable "option" on voting for candidates. The Green Party officially endorses proportional representation and IRV but does not support NOTA. Apparently, only a minority wanted NOTA.

The other observation I have is that a negative vote, voting against someone, reminds me of when Pagan coven votes on admitting a new coven member, all of the coven brothers and sisters vote yes or no on that candidate. From what I understand, though, the election must be unanimous. A coven is like a family. That is the only example that I am recalling right now where negative votes are counted against a candidate. In any case, voting for someone you like in an election for public office has the same effect as voting against someone you don't like. But if you don't like anyone, then we are back at the NOTA debate.

I think the best possible solution is to have write-in candidates, like they have had in the past in San Francisco. That's how Tom Amiano became prominent in an election contest some years ago, can't remember which one it was exactly. But I think that write-in candidates offer a much better solution than NOTA.

I'll be honest, I think there is an excruciatingly absurd element in NOTA, because among other things, it implies that we can have no one elected as a result, and well...I don't know. I suppose that we could entertain situations where that might be desirable or if someone has a nihilist attitude and hates all politics no matter what then that's what they would prefer. But I don't think it's a very serious or viable approach to government.

There are a couple of issues here. 1- is (that) I was not aware of the method that one can simply not put any preference in a square (on ballot) for a candidate and it would in essence automatically be a negative (non) vote and that your vote would definitely in no way be construed as voting for the candidate/s that you left without a number choice for on the ballot.
If that is (definitely) so then a specific negative vote would not be necessary and that may indeed actually be better than only 1 negative vote however, I would question whether or not people who just vote only for one and leave the rest blank; I guess staunch partisanship individuals would do that, but most people (hopefully) are not that staunch.

BTW, in the not so distant past, there was rumor that none of your votes for anything would count and your ballot would in essence be thrown away if you left any part whatsoever of the ballot unmarked (un-voted); that included all candidates, all judges, all local positions, all, including even the initiatives and propositions. That is another thing that I am not even sure about the (continued) existence of today as we speak.

2- The NOTA was a remedy for your ballot not being counted at all, whereas if you didn't completely fill the ballot and there was not any write-in space for a (pre-approved registered) candidate available, at least there was a space for a none of the above (NOTA).
That was one of the main reasons for none of the above but because now there is a space for a write-in candidate, The point for NOTA may be unnecessary.

To be cautionary and more specific, there was a time and maybe it (the somewhat obscure law) in the books still exists I don't know for sure about that... (but) ...voting for anybody that was other than a pre-approved write in candidate was basically throwing your vote (and potentially the whole ballot with everything and everybody else that you voted for in it) away because they would not even consider a candidate for certain political offices unless that candidate was registered as a candidate for that office for that voting cycle; and furthermore that (in doing so) could invalidate your whole ballot. That is why none of the above (NOTA) was so important because if (50% +1) people felt that they were getting railroaded at least, in theory there would have to be another special election held for the office. Presumably with (at least one) different candidate on the ballot.:idea:

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combination of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote? Or one positive vote and 3 detest votes? Etc?

:2cents:Your sarcasm is not helping much here but it is a bit entertaining.

Did I miss anything or did I cover all of the points?
I think (even with your sarcasm) you covered pretty well.:thumbsup:

Sara S

06-21-2010, 07:21 AM

And the first twinge of these death throes was when Richard Nixon was elected President...

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

LenInSebastopol

06-21-2010, 07:36 AM

And the first twinge of these death throes was when Richard Nixon was elected President...

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

Valley Oak

06-21-2010, 08:52 AM

I officially nominate Lenin to the Wacco list of high ranking trolls.

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

BabelTower99thFloor

06-21-2010, 08:58 AM

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

It's not surprising that you can't defend Nixon, his crimes are indefensible.

But the fact that you can't articulate a defense of Nixon does not give you the right to call her stupid and hateful.

Why your perpetually obnoxious and antagonistic posts are tolerated here is a mystery to me. I thought this is supposed to be a forum for "conscious" and "progressive" people.

Valley Oak

06-21-2010, 09:13 AM

Excellent point.

I reported Lenin's post to the list admin. You can do the same, if you wish. He won't listen to anyone else other than the moderators, certainly not to you and me.

It's not surprising that you can't defend Nixon, his crimes are indefensible.

But the fact that you can't articulate a defense of Nixon does not give you the right to call her stupid and hateful.

Why your perpetually obnoxious and antagonistic posts are tolerated here is a mystery to me. I thought this is supposed to be a forum for "conscious" and "progressive" people.

Valley Oak

06-21-2010, 10:15 AM

I apologize for my sarcasm. My intention was to use humor to make light of what I felt was a weak point but it came out as sarcasm. Again, I apologize.

In creating a more democratic election process, it is inescapable to develop more complex and even confusing voting systems. Whose to say which complexity is more appropriate than the next? It is a long debate and right now, it seems to me, the great majority of Americans are of the "KISS" opinion (keep it simple stupid). I met once such person when I tried to incorporate IRV into the bylaws one of the nonprofits that I used to volunteer for and was also a board member of for four (4) unconsecutive years. (The bylaws of a legally recognized nonprofit corporation are the equivalent of a constitution for a nation. And the nonprofit's bylaws are filed and recognized by the State of California. So if you violate your own bylaws then you are breaking the law, with severe legal penalties for the board of directors if they are found guilty.)

But I digress. Most Americans don't have the idea of electoral reform on their lips. And of those few who do, disagree greatly on which reform would be best. Just look at what the California electorate passed this last voting convocation: the "top two for gov. make it to the finals" initiative. That was not what we needed but it could help bring more debate and public enlightenment regarding electoral reform in the future, precisely because it is a disaster and will be intolerable for most Californians in years to come.

Regarding NOTA, the alternative of Proportional Representation is the solution. There is no need for NOTA, in my opinion, if almost everyone's needs and voices are heard in the various legislatures around the country. NOTA has more attraction here because we suffer under a grossly undemocratic two-party system. So, yes, often times I am so disgusted with the poor choices in candidates I have felt like saying something like "none of them are any damn good!"

The notion of NOTA is non-existent in Europe, not because of a lack of consciousness but because of a lack of need. The great majority of Europeans have representation in their local and national legislatures because there are many political parties to choose from. There are relatively few Europeans who believe that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about the political process in their given countries.

There are some groups that are disenfranchised by the democratic process in Europe, such as the extreme, radical left, right-wingnuts, immigrants, and perhaps children and people in mental institutions to some degree. Most of the people in these groups don't have the right to vote and others refuse to vote. However, immigrants have some indirect representation through left wing parties. The mentally ill, indigent, and children benefit from the caretaker attitude from most parties.

There are a couple of issues here. 1- is (that) I was not aware of the method that one can simply not put any preference in a square (on ballot) for a candidate and it would in essence automatically be a negative (non) vote and that your vote would definitely in no way be construed as voting for the candidate/s that you left without a number choice for on the ballot.
If that is (definitely) so then a specific negative vote would not be necessary and that may indeed actually be better than only 1 negative vote however, I would question whether or not people who just vote only for one and leave the rest blank; I guess staunch partisanship individuals would do that, but most people (hopefully) are not that staunch.

BTW, in the not so distant past, there was rumor that none of your votes for anything would count and your ballot would in essence be thrown away if you left any part whatsoever of the ballot unmarked (un-voted); that included all candidates, all judges, all local positions, all, including even the initiatives and propositions. That is another thing that I am not even sure about the (continued) existence of today as we speak.

2- The NOTA was a remedy for your ballot not being counted at all, whereas if you didn't completely fill the ballot and there was not any write-in space for a (pre-approved registered) candidate available, at least there was a space for a none of the above (NOTA).
That was one of the main reasons for none of the above but because now there is a space for a write-in candidate, The point for NOTA may be unnecessary.

To be cautionary and more specific, there was a time and maybe it (the somewhat obscure law) in the books still exists I don't know for sure about that... (but) ...voting for anybody that was other than a pre-approved write in candidate was basically throwing your vote (and potentially the whole ballot with everything and everybody else that you voted for in it) away because they would not even consider a candidate for certain political offices unless that candidate was registered as a candidate for that office for that voting cycle; and furthermore that (in doing so) could invalidate your whole ballot. That is why none of the above (NOTA) was so important because if (50% +1) people felt that they were getting railroaded at least, in theory there would have to be another special election held for the office. Presumably with (at least one) different candidate on the ballot.:idea:

:2cents:Your sarcasm is not helping much here but it is a bit entertaining.

I think (even with your sarcasm) you covered pretty well.:thumbsup:

Hotspring 44

06-21-2010, 12:31 PM

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

Would you say the same for Hitler and his third Reich, Alexander the great, Saddam Hussein, Bluebeard, etc.?:hmmm:

Anyway I do understand 1 point that could be construed from your comment.
The point would be (that) we have to deal with the living and the situation we have now; therefore it would be a waste of time to complain too much about a dead person.
One exception would be that when the policies of that dead person are still causing problems today; we have to live with the reminiscence of those policies and deal with the policies, and with the living people that continue those bad policies, because if for no other reason a point of reference.

I think in recent history, Jimmy Carter is the only American Pres. that was capable of admitting he had a bad policy, and would have actually changed it if he had the power to do so.

All the other Presidents and vice Presidents were too egotistical to do that even if deep in their hearts they knew better.

To the type A personality (within their own psyche) admitting a mistake is literally being defeated.
We all (probably) know how type A personalities have to winno matter what the cost in misery to other people because the vast majority of type A's are literally incapable of equitable empathy.

Hotspring 44

06-21-2010, 01:22 PM

LenInSebastopol

06-21-2010, 06:49 PM

It's not surprising that you can't defend Nixon, his crimes are indefensible.
But the fact that you can't articulate a defense of Nixon does not give you the right to call her stupid and hateful.

You know, you are partly right. I apologize for name calling. It was rude and hurtful of me to do so.
And I would not defend Nixon, nor his "crimes" as there are enough folks in the world that will do such, and they are more articulate than I. Of course, what you mean by crimes, those others may find not so bad. And they may find "opening up" to China a crime, which I doubt is considered such in these parts.

Why your perpetually obnoxious and antagonistic posts are tolerated here is a mystery to me. I thought this is supposed to be a forum for "conscious" and "progressive" people.

It is a forum for such, and it is clear that the founder and administrator really does understand what so many in the progressive movement do not tolerate well: free speech.

Now I was rude, and I truly apologize for name calling. Late night, early morning, brain not fully awake and rightly thinking, I just get tired of folks blaming EVERYBODY else, and then some old hater-of-Nixon (I am no lover, but I do respect the man because of the office held and some of his positions) has to resurrect the dead to kick one more time. Gadzooks! That is regress, not progress. While being a cheerleader for dead presidents, she might was well throw in Jackson, since he "democratized" the Constitution.

LenInSebastopol

06-21-2010, 07:06 PM

Would you say the same for Hitler and his third Reich, Alexander the great, Saddam Hussein, Bluebeard, etc.?:hmmm:

It's a knotty problem, this 'history' thingy. Below I see you make a finer point than I am capable of dealing with: influences of those leaders in history. The ripple effect in policy and today's problems traced back to Alexander the Great has been done, in a sense, but it is far to subtle for me to deal with. Almost like an faint odor in a forest that brings back memories of living in the city as a child...strange connection but there.

Anyway I do understand 1 point that could be construed from your comment. The point would be (that) we have to deal with the living and the situation we have now; therefore it would be a waste of time to complain too much about a dead person.
One exception would be that when the policies of that dead person are still causing problems today; we have to live with the reminiscence of those policies and deal with the policies, and with the living people that continue those bad policies, because if for no other reason a point of reference.
It is nice someone get my drift, rude though it was, but the stacking effects of policies and the distortions of history and others' claims to those are to difficult and simply cause further rubs. Nixon's 'War on Drugs', a complete failure was probably not set up to end as it did. Nor was HUD & HEW or Education, but we have worse housing, unemployment and our education is all but totally broken producing children that can't read well, write well, nor do rudimentary math, especially in our Golden State!

I think in recent history, Jimmy Carter is the only American Pres. that was capable of admitting he had a bad policy, and would have actually changed it if he had the power to do so.
All the other Presidents and vice Presidents were too egotistical to do that even if deep in their hearts they knew better.
To the type A personality (within their own psyche) admitting a mistake is literally being defeated.
We all (probably) know how type A personalities have to win no matter what the cost in misery to other people because the vast majority of type A's are literally incapable of equitable empathy.

I suppose Type A personality is a good way to describe them. I prefer the MMP-type personality tests which kind of categorizes sociopaths in the same league as politicians. I fear those that crave office, since their lust for power, recognition, adulation and other vices simply are fed by running and being voted into office.
Those like Carter cannot "make" it and are hated by many, much like Nixon, since he breaks the mold by admitting mistakes. Gov't agencies & officials are loath to do such, just as one can't get a sociopath to admit error. They ask stone criminals 'why' and it always comes down to 'they made me', in various modes. Like the old Richard Pryor joke, "Why'd you kill 'em?", "Cause they were home'.
Thanks for 'getting me' rather than just 'hate him'. Appreciated.

LenInSebastopol

06-21-2010, 07:13 PM

Actually I do read some of your posts, and all to often get confused, I must admit, by your positions or logic. Have I been as rude in the past as I was today? I don't think so. Why report me (you don't even read me) or is it you just wish to practice your craft with only those that agree? What good is that? If you wish to improve your skills, to shut up with those that simply nod to most all you post? Don't limit yourself. Or another's free speech.

Excellent point.

I reported Lenin's post to the list admin. You can do the same, if you wish. He won't listen to anyone else other than the moderators, certainly not to you and me.

Valley Oak

06-21-2010, 07:42 PM

I have just added Lenin to my ignore list, as you can see below. The format is lost but you can distinctly see in the text below "Ignore List" and "LenInSebastopol" immediately below it.

I strongly recommend that others on this list put trolls like Lenin on their ignore lists.

To remove a user from either the Buddy or Ignore Lists, un-tick the box next to their name and click the 'Save List' button.

To add a user to either list, enter their name in the empty boxes for that list and click 'Save List'.
Ignore List
LenInSebastopol

Add New User to List

Check / Uncheck All
To view the complete members list, click here.

BabelTower99thFloor

06-21-2010, 08:18 PM

The anonymity of the internet is challenging and changing society, in some ways for the worse. You would not dare to be such an unwarranted asshole to a woman (or a man) face to face in a classroom for instance, but behind your keyboard in the anonymous safety of your home, you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.

Your politics are irrelevant.

You know, you are partly right. I apologize for name calling. It was rude and hurtful of me to do so.
And I would not defend Nixon, nor his "crimes" as there are enough folks in the world that will do such, and they are more articulate than I. Of course, what you mean by crimes, those others may find not so bad. And they may find "opening up" to China a crime, which I doubt is considered such in these parts.

It is a forum for such, and it is clear that the founder and administrator really does understand what so many in the progressive movement do not tolerate well: free speech.

Now I was rude, and I truly apologize for name calling. Late night, early morning, brain not fully awake and rightly thinking, I just get tired of folks blaming EVERYBODY else, and then some old hater-of-Nixon (I am no lover, but I do respect the man because of the office held and some of his positions) has to resurrect the dead to kick one more time. Gadzooks! That is regress, not progress. While being a cheerleader for dead presidents, she might was well throw in Jackson, since he "democratized" the Constitution.

Hotspring 44

06-21-2010, 09:49 PM

The anonymity of the internet is challenging and changing society, in some ways for the worse. You would not dare to be such an unwarranted asshole to a woman (or a man) face to face in a classroom for instance, but behind your keyboard in the anonymous safety of your home, you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.

Your politics are irrelevant.

Actually I had a very good friend; until he died, whom was much like that to people face-to-face. I would say he was even more crude and rude at times.
Yes sometimes people took a swing at him but he still said what he thought. There was not really much of an Internet at that point in time and he most certainly did not even have a telephone, it was all up close and personal style. we didn't always agree but we always got along after I got to know him.

Some people are just naturally that way, Internet or not.

Please don't get me wrong, I understand your point,...
("...you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.")

...and I'm not trying to start or continue any arguments, I am just trying to make a point, that's all.

Another point would be although (here it is) nowhere near as serious; like, for example (as): yelling fire!... in a crowded theater. There are limits to "free speech". Free speech is a relative term, anyway. It all depends on what the "definition of is; is", in regards to what free speech is .

Then there are other situations like for example: how much can a man swear at another man's wife and children right in front of him before those words become fighting words?
Once again that all depends upon what the definition of is: is, as to whether or not, the man felt his family was being threatened as to whether or not, he threw the first punch, or whether or not the man was just protecting (defending) his family. Sometimes it's difficult to judge those things in the past tense, without actually being there to witness the incident from start to finish.

At least here on the Internet, we have it all in sequential writing; so as it would be easier for a group of people to judge. but that still does not mean the group can collectively, get it right 100% of the time.

:2cents:For the most part, I think it's a good exercise to intellectually, not allow antagonists to get your goat!:weightlifter::strength:

BabelTower99thFloor

06-21-2010, 10:11 PM

Your friend could not get away with being crude and rude in a classroom or work environment or movie theater.

And it's true, there's a huge range of people in terms of empathy, but most have little or none, and so they're unaware that free reign of "antagonists" tends to filter out the sensitive among us who have a lot to offer, but will never grow a thick skin.

Poor MsTerry... um... I mean, LenInSebastopol, he's practically the victim here! He was half asleep and that "old hater-of-Nixon" was "kicking the dead" and Len just couldn't help himself. Then Barry forced him to apologize, and oh, how he suffers so...

Actually I had a very good friend; until he died, whom was much like that to people face-to-face. I would say he was even more crude and rude at times.
Yes sometimes people took a swing at him but he still said what he thought. There was not really much of an Internet at that point in time and he most certainly did not even have a telephone, it was all up close and personal style. we didn't always agree but we always got along after I got to know him.

Some people are just naturally that way, Internet or not.

Please don't get me wrong, I understand your point,...
("...you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.")

...and I'm not trying to start or continue any arguments, I am just trying to make a point, that's all.

Another point would be although (here it is) nowhere near as serious; like, for example (as): yelling fire!... in a crowded theater. There are limits to "free speech". Free speech is a relative term, anyway. It all depends on what the "definition of is; is", in regards to what free speech is .

Then there are other situations like for example: how much can a man swear at another man's wife and children right in front of him before those words become fighting words?
Once again that all depends upon what the definition of is: is, as to whether or not, the man felt his family was being threatened as to whether or not, he threw the first punch, or whether or not the man was just protecting (defending) his family. Sometimes it's difficult to judge those things in the past tense, without actually being there to witness the incident from start to finish.

At least here on the Internet, we have it all in sequential writing; so as it would be easier for a group of people to judge. but that still does not mean the group can collectively, get it right 100% of the time.

:2cents:For the most part, I think it's a good exercise to intellectually, not allow antagonists to get your goat!:weightlifter::strength:

Hotspring 44

06-21-2010, 11:00 PM

theindependenteye

06-21-2010, 11:08 PM

Friends--

It seems to be a reliable Wacco index that when a particular subject heading registers more than a half dozen volleys, it's a sign that the subject has changed utterly. And the subject, invariably, is someone's stupidity, ignorance, trolldom, or -- well, name your pejorative.

If pejoratives were purgatives, some people might be getting relief. But that doesn't appear to be the case: the runs just never stop. Even when there's an apology, somebody has to get in a few jabs before the ref breaks the clinch.

It's really boring, friends. If there were some really clever insults here, it might be worth reading, but in my time on Wacco, very little abuse has ever risen above the wit level of the Three Stooges. The only bright spot, if one can call it that, is that it's equal-opportunity crapola: all sides of the political spectrum are equally represented crapping in the craphouse.

Everyone here surely has been on the Web long enough to know that you can't banish what you regard as ignorance, bigotry or evil from the Internet. Why try? Is it truly impossible to stay on topic, to respond to a post without personal insult and the inevitable chain of neat little turds that it leads to? Is there some critical strategic error in the notion of giving someone's motives the benefit of the doubt, or if there's a flare-up, just *not* to pursue it?

I don't mean to argue the virtues of being polite or the peace that can come from the Quaker presumption of a spark of the Divine in each human soul. I'm just trying to point out that this incessant habit of wandering off into personal haggles is boring, boring, boring. It may be that the subject of "Republicans, party of British Petroleum, not American people" turns out to be just as boring, but why not give it a chance?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

BabelTower99thFloor

06-21-2010, 11:18 PM

...I'm just trying to point out that this incessant habit of wandering off into personal haggles is boring, boring, boring...

When a moderated forum allows a single troll free reign for 3 or 4 years, hijacking virtually every discussion, running off all but a dozen regular posters out of a claimed 10,000 members, you are right, it's boring. It's also dead. I'm outta here.

Hotspring 44

06-21-2010, 11:28 PM

Hotspring 44

06-22-2010, 01:08 AM

Sciguy

06-22-2010, 02:38 AM

:2cents:Your sarcasm is not helping much here but it is a bit entertaining.

.:thumbsup:

Actually, even though Hotspring44 thought that Valley Oak was being sarcastic (and maybe Valley thought so too) his sarcasm hit an important point that is conventionally omitted from voting discussions. A simplified form of proportional voting has become accepted but a more subtle and perhaps more useful version is being glossed over.

Valley Oak was perhaps kidding when he said:

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combination of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote?

but this conceals a truth. Why are we restricted to only one level of approval of a candidate? This is not nearly realistic. There are always candidates that we really love, others that we could live with and still others that are just a little better than those other jerks. We could easily express this by being able to put a number from 1 to 5 next to each candidate's name. In this world of computers, the data entry would be childishly easy. Imagine for example that each candidate had five spaces next to his name with only one of them to be filled with a number 2 pencil, the spaces being valued from 1 to 5 with all of them empty counting for 0. Giving 5 would be like falling on your knees with adoration. A computer could read it and apportion the votes according to the standard algorithm. This would allow for a much more nuanced selection process, and one more psychologically satisfying than today's having to cast a full vote for a half-jerk, just to vote against a worse jerk.

There are actually problems with all proportional voting calculation schemes as outlined in a Scientific American article a few years ago. They can lead to some peculiar results, but probably won't in the real world. My suggestion here won't be perfect either but it's more real than just voting a straight yes or no for everyone.

I would love to see some organization with spunk try this out instead of what is mostly done, just copying traditional American national models of organization and voting.

Sciguy

LenInSebastopol

06-22-2010, 04:39 AM

The anonymity of the internet is challenging and changing society, in some ways for the worse. You would not dare to be such an unwarranted asshole to a woman (or a man) face to face in a classroom for instance, but behind your keyboard in the anonymous safety of your home, you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize. Your politics are irrelevant.

Those that would use a classroom setting to stop or control the free exchange of thoughts that are different than another person's does not belong in any classroom. Possibly a gulag, but not where adults may offer differing views. That, and internet forums, are places were dissenting thoughts & findings are the last place where one should curb varied POV.
And I am glad you realize my politics are irrelevant.

LenInSebastopol

06-22-2010, 04:56 AM

Your friend could not get away with being crude and rude in a classroom or work environment or movie theater.
And it's true, there's a huge range of people in terms of empathy, but most have little or none, and so they're unaware that free reign of "antagonists" tends to filter out the sensitive among us who have a lot to offer, but will never grow a thick skin.

A most hurtful point you raise is 'those who are sensitive who've a lot to offer but.......', I pray that such gain & realize the passion to allow what they have to offer to come to the surface and be expressed. Not being unfamiliar with the sensitive, it is imperative that their expression be allowed to enter the forum and possibly even nurtured for, as you know, they often have a good truth that needs to come to light. You are right, one can swing an emoticon in these forums for years and rarely hit one who is sensitive, as those that post tend to be all but (or is it 'butt'?) and after a time drown out those small, quiet voices because of the boring fracas, name calling, etc.

Poor MsTerry... um... I mean, LenInSebastopol, he's practically the victim here! He was half asleep and that "old hater-of-Nixon" was "kicking the dead" and Len just couldn't help himself. Then Barry forced him to apologize, and oh, how he suffers so...

One of the 'progressive' things I find no comfort in is the 'victim' game. There's no responsibility. I remember the EST seminar I took in the late 70's I argued with the moderator about 'responsibility' with my question being, "I am walking down the street, a meteor hits me, am I responsible?" and his answer was "Yes". It took a long while to work through that.
BTW, I've not received a "Barry" memo in long while. At least not relative to this exchange, and if he does give me the boot, then that is what he may do. Seeing another's demise may make at least a couple people happy. Strange world, eh?

LenInSebastopol

06-22-2010, 05:12 AM

Clancy

06-22-2010, 06:01 AM

You are not a victim of suppression of free speech, this forum is an all but expired victim of your narcissistic hyperbole.

Those that would use a classroom setting to stop or control the free exchange of thoughts that are different than another person's does not belong in any classroom. Possibly a gulag, but not where adults may offer differing views. That, and internet forums, are places were dissenting thoughts & findings are the last place where one should curb varied POV.
And I am glad you realize my politics are irrelevant.

Valley Oak

06-22-2010, 07:44 AM

Interesting spinoff. Like you alluded to, I didn't seriously contemplate this "avenue" within the thread but you certainly developed it quite nicely. How could we go about implementing any such reform? How could this idea find expression in the real world so that we could actually see this on the ballot someday in the future?

Would this be better than ranking candidates? Joe Blow is my first pick, Jane Doe is my second pick, and Richard Nixon is my piss-poor pick? (Or simply not chosen at all.)

Can you give us a reference to the Scientific American article? There is an extensive critique of first-past-the-post and the ensuing two-party system that it creates offered by French political theorist Maurice Duverger. His theories are generally accepted as accurate and some current political terminology was coined by him, such as "presidentialist" systems (the U.S.) and "semi-presidentialist" systems (France).

Actually, even though Hotspring44 thought that Valley Oak was being sarcastic (and maybe Valley thought so too) his sarcasm hit an important point that is conventionally omitted from voting discussions. A simplified form of proportional voting has become accepted but a more subtle and perhaps more useful version is being glossed over.

Valley Oak was perhaps kidding when he said:

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combination of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote?

but this conceals a truth. Why are we restricted to only one level of approval of a candidate? This is not nearly realistic. There are always candidates that we really love, others that we could live with and still others that are just a little better than those other jerks. We could easily express this by being able to put a number from 1 to 5 next to each candidate's name. In this world of computers, the data entry would be childishly easy. Imagine for example that each candidate had five spaces next to his name with only one of them to be filled with a number 2 pencil, the spaces being valued from 1 to 5 with all of them empty counting for 0. Giving 5 would be like falling on your knees with adoration. A computer could read it and apportion the votes according to the standard algorithm. This would allow for a much more nuanced selection process, and one more psychologically satisfying than today's having to cast a full vote for a half-jerk, just to vote against a worse jerk.

There are actually problems with all proportional voting calculation schemes as outlined in a Scientific American article a few years ago. They can lead to some peculiar results, but probably won't in the real world. My suggestion here won't be perfect either but it's more real than just voting a straight yes or no for everyone.

I would love to see some organization with spunk try this out instead of what is mostly done, just copying traditional American national models of organization and voting.

Sciguy

Valley Oak

06-22-2010, 09:25 AM

I have edited this post:

Regarding getting back on topic and the title of this thread, I'm very tempted to include the term, "Libertarian," since that has become one of the ideological subgroups of American reactionaries. Examples of these "Libertarians" are Ron Paul (a Republican House representative from Texas) and his even more reprehensible son, Rand Paul, who accused President Obama of being "un-American" for his stance on BP after the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is no casual coincidence that Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is another Libertarian, is supported by Tea Baggers, and is running under the Republican ticket. They're so much alike, even in their names.

Fascinating is the dead silence of Libertarians on the Wacco list and the rather large slew of ardent Ron Paul for President supporters! They have all shut the f___ up after the oil spill and after Rand Paul's reprehensible and delusional remarks, which scandalously defended BP and viciously attacked Obama for doing what he was supposed to do as President.

Libertarians clearly have misplaced their loyalties, as well as their father political party, the GOP. They have confused patriotism with an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism, no matter how criminal and destructive. This is because Libertarians and Republicans hate government and taxation so much that they regard any program they don't like as Socialist. Therefore, any Democratic president, any increase in the size of government, and any government intervention (even when it's defending the country and its people from corporate atrocities, such as BP's) is treated as "un-American" and "Socialist."

However, this anti-government, anti-big-government, anti-government spending, etc, doesn't bother the Tea Baggers and Libertarians when public monies go to fund private, religious schools, something that the government clearly should not be doing. It doesn't bother the Right-Wing when more than 300 billion dollars and roughly one-third of the nation's budget goes to fund the Armed Forces and wars that we cannot afford. Then big government, taxes, and deficit spending are real good things all of a sudden. And these are just a couple of examples. It's okay to tax the American people to death in order to fund the Right-Wing's pet government projects but NOT corporations.

After all, the wars are fought with the blood of America's poor who crawl out of and are recruited from poor neighborhoods, as well as on their backs in order to fund those same wars that Libertarians, Tea Baggers, and Republicans love so much. Then big government and taxes are great and godly things.

I should address the other good points you've made but I have to get going.

I will do what I can to get back on topic here.
I am sure that there will be another topic that covers other things that have been said here on this topic more thoroughly and better than this one ( Republicans, party of British Petroleum, not American people) can; Maybe this topic could have been titled, Republicans, party of big business, not the average American.

Anyway it seems like it may have veered off topic a little.
there have been some important things of interest stated on this thread that relate to the gist of the original subject matter, which I think is largely rooted from the apology that the Republican representative gave to the British Petroleum executive, Tony Hayward regarding British Petroleum having to put up billions of dollars upfront for the damages caused by the oil spill in the Gulf..

I think that was gist of the reasoning for the thread here.
The fact that that a Republican representative had the audacity to apologize to British Petroleum! And then at the behest of his party he gave an (absurdly worded) apology for the apology to boot!
Wow!
That is so obviously showing where the Republican Party is at considering his position and the Republican party's general direction. That is why I believe this thread topic got the name that it has.

To those who find this thread "boring" at this point because of "personal haggles" and it going somewhat off topic; it sounds to me like you are equally disgusted as bored either way, or both that is understandable.

So anyway, I guess the big question is, what can we actually do to change the situation of big business completely taking over our country's leadership?

Hotspring 44

06-22-2010, 09:38 AM

Sara S

06-22-2010, 10:51 AM

Crimes, you say? Aren't we all aware that had it not been for the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy that RMN could never have been able to become president? And he WAS in Dallas the night before the first of these deaths.......

You know, you are partly right. I apologize for name calling. It was rude and hurtful of me to do so.
And I would not defend Nixon, nor his "crimes" as there are enough folks in the world that will do such, and they are more articulate than I. Of course, what you mean by crimes, those others may find not so bad. And they may find "opening up" to China a crime, which I doubt is considered such in these parts.

It is a forum for such, and it is clear that the founder and administrator really does understand what so many in the progressive movement do not tolerate well: free speech.

Now I was rude, and I truly apologize for name calling. Late night, early morning, brain not fully awake and rightly thinking, I just get tired of folks blaming EVERYBODY else, and then some old hater-of-Nixon (I am no lover, but I do respect the man because of the office held and some of his positions) has to resurrect the dead to kick one more time. Gadzooks! That is regress, not progress. While being a cheerleader for dead presidents, she might was well throw in Jackson, since he "democratized" the Constitution.

Sara S

06-22-2010, 11:01 AM

Oh, good idea; I had forgotten that I could do that, since I haven't "ignored" anyone since MsTerry......

I have just added Lenin to my ignore list, as you can see below. The format is lost but you can distinctly see in the text below "Ignore List" and "LenInSebastopol" immediately below it.

I strongly recommend that others on this list put trolls like Lenin on their ignore lists.

Sara S

06-22-2010, 11:03 AM

Thank you, Babel99, for both of your posts; I can't seem to get the "gratitude" button to work for you, so: thanks!

The anonymity of the internet is challenging and changing society, in some ways for the worse. You would not dare to be such an unwarranted asshole to a woman (or a man) face to face in a classroom for instance, but behind your keyboard in the anonymous safety of your home, you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.

Your politics are irrelevant.

Sara S

06-22-2010, 11:11 AM

Yeah, I can't really get upset by anything anyone says....and if I do, I have a shotgun....

Actually I had a very good friend; until he died, whom was much like that to people face-to-face. I would say he was even more crude and rude at times.
Yes sometimes people took a swing at him but he still said what he thought. There was not really much of an Internet at that point in time and he most certainly did not even have a telephone, it was all up close and personal style. we didn't always agree but we always got along after I got to know him.

Some people are just naturally that way, Internet or not.

Please don't get me wrong, I understand your point,...
("...you hide behind "free speech" in order to insult and antagonize.")

...and I'm not trying to start or continue any arguments, I am just trying to make a point, that's all.

Another point would be although (here it is) nowhere near as serious; like, for example (as): yelling fire!... in a crowded theater. There are limits to "free speech". Free speech is a relative term, anyway. It all depends on what the "definition of is; is", in regards to what free speech is .

Then there are other situations like for example: how much can a man swear at another man's wife and children right in front of him before those words become fighting words?
Once again that all depends upon what the definition of is: is, as to whether or not, the man felt his family was being threatened as to whether or not, he threw the first punch, or whether or not the man was just protecting (defending) his family. Sometimes it's difficult to judge those things in the past tense, without actually being there to witness the incident from start to finish.

At least here on the Internet, we have it all in sequential writing; so as it would be easier for a group of people to judge. but that still does not mean the group can collectively, get it right 100% of the time.

:2cents:For the most part, I think it's a good exercise to intellectually, not allow antagonists to get your goat!:weightlifter::strength:

Hotspring 44

06-22-2010, 11:25 AM

A "gun toting liberal"?... ...LOL!

Yeah, I can't really get upset by anything anyone says....and if I do, I have a shotgun....

Sara S

06-22-2010, 05:56 PM

Yup. Remember the scene in one of Michael Moore's movies (Columbine? 451? can't remember) where he shows us his Junior NRA certificate? I have one too: "Pro-Marksman" class, from when I was 11 years old.

A "gun toting liberal"?... ...LOL!

someguy

06-22-2010, 09:57 PM

I have edited this post:

Regarding getting back on topic and the title of this thread, I'm very tempted to include the term, "Libertarian," since that has become one of the ideological subgroups of American reactionaries. Examples of these "Libertarians" are Ron Paul (a Republican House representative from Texas) and his even more reprehensible son, Rand Paul, who accused President Obama of being "un-American" for his stance on BP after the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is no casual coincidence that Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is another Libertarian, is supported by Tea Baggers, and is running under the Republican ticket. They're so much alike, even in their names.

Fascinating is the dead silence of Libertarians on the Wacco list and the rather large slew of ardent Ron Paul for President supporters! They have all shut the f___ up after the oil spill and after Rand Paul's reprehensible and delusional remarks, which scandalously defended BP and viciously attacked Obama for doing what he was supposed to do as President.

Libertarians clearly have misplaced their loyalties, as well as their father political party, the GOP. They have confused patriotism with an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism, no matter how criminal and destructive. This is because Libertarians and Republicans hate government and taxation so much that they regard any program they don't like as Socialist. Therefore, any Democratic president, any increase in the size of government, and any government intervention (even when it's defending the country and its people from corporate atrocities, such as BP's) is treated as "un-American" and "Socialist."

However, this anti-government, anti-big-government, anti-government spending, etc, doesn't bother the Tea Baggers and Libertarians when public monies go to fund private, religious schools, something that the government clearly should not be doing. It doesn't bother the Right-Wing when more than 300 billion dollars and roughly one-third of the nation's budget goes to fund the Armed Forces and wars that we cannot afford. Then big government, taxes, and deficit spending are real good things all of a sudden. And these are just a couple of examples. It's okay to tax the American people to death in order to fund the Right-Wing's pet government projects but NOT corporations.

After all, the wars are fought with the blood of America's poor who crawl out of and are recruited from poor neighborhoods, as well as on their backs in order to fund those same wars that Libertarians, Tea Baggers, and Republicans love so much. Then big government and taxes are great and godly things.

I should address the other good points you've made but I have to get going.

I am utterly disgusted with your above post, and even more disgusted that Barry has given it gratitude.

I am not a Libertarian, as I have stated before. And I have not been silent about the oil spill. I have not posted on this thread because the main premise of the thread is too retarded for words. You obviously don't really want to know what my perspective is on this oil spill, or you would have looked it up. I'll give you a hint: Tony Hayward and Goldman Sachs both sold off a huge percentage of their BP stocks right before the spill. And now Obama is trying to give BP exactly what they have lobbied for, cap and trade.

Ron Paul is a Republican because if you look up the original Republican Party Platform (which I'm sure you won't), it is astoundingly great. I can't disagree with a single thing it says, and I am a person who used to consider "conservative" to be a swear word. In fact, the platform is very similar to the original Democratic Party Platform. Republicans started calling themselves Libertarians when the Republican party essentially abandoned their own platform. Ron Paul simply decided not to do that, because the Republican Party Platform is still right on. Nowadays, when most people speak of Republicans, they are really talking about Neo-conservatives, something entirely different.

I am not a fan of Rand Paul, maybe that's why I don't talk about him. However, his comments about Obama could hardly be considered a "vicious attack". Your bias is showing, dude. Personally, I did not like Obamas "boot on the throat" comment, either. I didn't like it because its pure rhetoric designed to distract a retarded American public from the fact that BP and other corporations essentially run this country, and that is why they get away with things like this oil spill. Obama may as well work for BP, they have given him so much money. And now Obama is using the oil spill as an excuse to pass a carbon tax, which BP has lobbied for. Coincidence? I think not.

You have completely missed the point of what Libertarians, Tea Partyers, etc, are all about. Completely. In theory, government regulations are supposed to protect the public. In reality, however, they f*ck us over royally and protect the corporations. Need an example?

Okay, lets start with farm subsidies. Liberals love to complain about factory farms. But why do we even have factory farms anyway? Its because the Department of Agriculture subsidizes corn and soy, making them artificially cheap. So what do the farmers feed the cows? You guessed it. And when the cows are no longer eating grass, their natural diet, it doesn't really make economic sense to let them roam free, does it? Its much easier, from an economic standpoint, to keep them confined in a building. Which leads to increased illness due to the close quarters they live in, which leads to farmers adding antibiotics to the feed, which leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So now we have superbugs, unhappy diseased cows, and beef that is no longer healthy for human consumption due to the improper diet of the cow. We have a dead zone in the ocean from all the agricultural run-off into the rivers, seriously depleted topsoil, and lots of air pollution from all of the farm machinery that it takes to produce such copious amounts of corn and soy. Oh yeah, and we have the agribusiness corporations and Monsanto making billions of dollars. Your government regulations really protected us, don't you think, Valley Oak?

Of course, if you suggest that we get rid of the Department of Agriculture (which is responsible for such reprehensible policies), like Ron Paul has, you get called a lunatic. But when the subsidies are the cause of the problem, the only sensical thing to do is get rid of them. People seem to think that no one would know how to farm if the government didn't tell them how to do it. But we did all right before the subsidies, didn't we?

By the way, all of the other agricultural regulations are designed to put small farmers out of business. Seriously, it is next to freaking impossible to start a small farm or maintain one in the US unless you already own land and have tons of capital. The whole system is designed to concentrate everything in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy agribusinesspeople.

how about organic standards? Liberals love organic, right? Well, unfortunately organic doesn't mean shit anymore, thats why local farms like Laguna Farm have to advertise their produce as "beyond organic." The reason is that huge agribusiness corporations want to sell their stuff as organic for a much higher price, but they don't want to have to deal with pesky rules that drive their costs up. So they lobby. Now, if you go to the store and buy an organic "free-range" chicken, the life of that chicken is essentially identical to a conventional chicken. The only differences are that the feed is made of organic corn and soy instead of conventional, and they can't add antibiotics. That actually makes for a huge health risk since the chickens are still basically living in close confinement. The "free-range" part comes from the tiny dirt yard that the chickens technically have access to, if they can squeeze themselves through the other chickens to get to it. This is a world away from the real life a chicken is supposed to have. Thanks to your super awesome government regulations, it is incredibly expensive to raise chickens the right way. I pay $5 a pound for pastured whole chickens from a local farmer, and he actually charges less than most other farmers in the area. The costs are just that high.

Just in case you still need another example of government regulations gone wrong, Obama promised to pass "healthcare reform" because the insurance companies were victimizing their customers, then he turned around and required all Americans to purchase insurance! Now we are all slaves to the insurance companies, whether we like it or not. At least before we could choose to opt out. Seriously, for people who claim to believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose, liberals sure don't seem to care about freedom of choice when it comes to other things.

The problem is that when you give the federal government huge amounts of power to oversee and regulate everything, inevitably you will end up with unethical and power-hungry politicians in that federal government, who are more than happy to hand that power over to the corporations, for a hefty fee of course. It has happened time and time again. That is why true conservatives are against big government, period. Your characterization of Ron Paul and other Libertarians as being for the wars and for big government when it supports their policies is disingenuous. Anyone who has actually listened to what Ron Paul has to say knows that. Meanwhile, the one person who is actually in a position to do something about the wars has done nothing, which you conveniently ignore. Again, your bias is showing, big time.

For the record, Ron Paul is not for big government even when he personally agrees with the particular policy. For example, he is against abortion, but he does not support a federal ban on abortion. He doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage. I don't know how much more principled a person could get! Also, I have never heard any Libertarian or Tea Party member say anything about supporting federal funding for private religious schools, ever. Where are you coming up with this? If you're complaining that they don't bring it up, well, im guessing that they have more important and pressing issues on their minds right now.

Your characterization of Libertarians as having "an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism" proves that you totally don't get it. Libertarians are trying to point out that corporations run our freaking government, via government regulations! Our government just gave away billions of our tax dollars to big banks, then they handed the insurance companies millions of new customers on a god damn platter, and now they want to reward BP for the oil "spill" by giving them cap and trade! Good grief.......please think a little before you spout off next time.......is that too much to ask?

Clancy

06-22-2010, 10:55 PM

I can't disagree with just about any of this comprehensive essay, and I strongly agree with much of it. I now think labels like liberal, conservative and libertarian have lost all meaning and are being used to keep us divided. Obama is as much a puppet of corporate America as Bush was, and his supporters are in similar denial.

I'm beginning to doubt there's a political solution to our predicament. Likely, we'll continue on the same self-destructive path until our enormously overstrained institutions and infrastructure collapse, much as Greece, Spain and Italy are doing at this very moment. It may be even more spectacular, so try to enjoy yourselves, these are truly the good ol' days.

I am utterly disgusted with your above post, and even more disgusted that Barry has given it gratitude.

I am not a Libertarian, as I have stated before. And I have not been silent about the oil spill. I have not posted on this thread because the main premise of the thread is too retarded for words. You obviously don't really want to know what my perspective is on this oil spill, or you would have looked it up. I'll give you a hint: Tony Hayward and Goldman Sachs both sold off a huge percentage of their BP stocks right before the spill. And now Obama is trying to give BP exactly what they have lobbied for, cap and trade.

Ron Paul is a Republican because if you look up the original Republican Party Platform (which I'm sure you won't), it is astoundingly great. I can't disagree with a single thing it says, and I am a person who used to consider "conservative" to be a swear word. In fact, the platform is very similar to the original Democratic Party Platform. Republicans started calling themselves Libertarians when the Republican party essentially abandoned their own platform. Ron Paul simply decided not to do that, because the Republican Party Platform is still right on. Nowadays, when most people speak of Republicans, they are really talking about Neo-conservatives, something entirely different.

I am not a fan of Rand Paul, maybe that's why I don't talk about him. However, his comments about Obama could hardly be considered a "vicious attack". Your bias is showing, dude. Personally, I did not like Obamas "boot on the throat" comment, either. I didn't like it because its pure rhetoric designed to distract a retarded American public from the fact that BP and other corporations essentially run this country, and that is why they get away with things like this oil spill. Obama may as well work for BP, they have given him so much money. And now Obama is using the oil spill as an excuse to pass a carbon tax, which BP has lobbied for. Coincidence? I think not.

You have completely missed the point of what Libertarians, Tea Partyers, etc, are all about. Completely. In theory, government regulations are supposed to protect the public. In reality, however, they f*ck us over royally and protect the corporations. Need an example?

Okay, lets start with farm subsidies. Liberals love to complain about factory farms. But why do we even have factory farms anyway? Its because the Department of Agriculture subsidizes corn and soy, making them artificially cheap. So what do the farmers feed the cows? You guessed it. And when the cows are no longer eating grass, their natural diet, it doesn't really make economic sense to let them roam free, does it? Its much easier, from an economic standpoint, to keep them confined in a building. Which leads to increased illness due to the close quarters they live in, which leads to farmers adding antibiotics to the feed, which leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So now we have superbugs, unhappy diseased cows, and beef that is no longer healthy for human consumption due to the improper diet of the cow. We have a dead zone in the ocean from all the agricultural run-off into the rivers, seriously depleted topsoil, and lots of air pollution from all of the farm machinery that it takes to produce such copious amounts of corn and soy. Oh yeah, and we have the agribusiness corporations and Monsanto making billions of dollars. Your government regulations really protected us, don't you think, Valley Oak?

Of course, if you suggest that we get rid of the Department of Agriculture (which is responsible for such reprehensible policies), like Ron Paul has, you get called a lunatic. But when the subsidies are the cause of the problem, the only sensical thing to do is get rid of them. People seem to think that no one would know how to farm if the government didn't tell them how to do it. But we did all right before the subsidies, didn't we?

By the way, all of the other agricultural regulations are designed to put small farmers out of business. Seriously, it is next to freaking impossible to start a small farm or maintain one in the US unless you already own land and have tons of capital. The whole system is designed to concentrate everything in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy agribusinesspeople.

how about organic standards? Liberals love organic, right? Well, unfortunately organic doesn't mean shit anymore, thats why local farms like Laguna Farm have to advertise their produce as "beyond organic." The reason is that huge agribusiness corporations want to sell their stuff as organic for a much higher price, but they don't want to have to deal with pesky rules that drive their costs up. So they lobby. Now, if you go to the store and buy an organic "free-range" chicken, the life of that chicken is essentially identical to a conventional chicken. The only differences are that the feed is made of organic corn and soy instead of conventional, and they can't add antibiotics. That actually makes for a huge health risk since the chickens are still basically living in close confinement. The "free-range" part comes from the tiny dirt yard that the chickens technically have access to, if they can squeeze themselves through the other chickens to get to it. This is a world away from the real life a chicken is supposed to have. Thanks to your super awesome government regulations, it is incredibly expensive to raise chickens the right way. I pay $5 a pound for pastured whole chickens from a local farmer, and he actually charges less than most other farmers in the area. The costs are just that high.

Just in case you still need another example of government regulations gone wrong, Obama promised to pass "healthcare reform" because the insurance companies were victimizing their customers, then he turned around and required all Americans to purchase insurance! Now we are all slaves to the insurance companies, whether we like it or not. At least before we could choose to opt out. Seriously, for people who claim to believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose, liberals sure don't seem to care about freedom of choice when it comes to other things.

The problem is that when you give the federal government huge amounts of power to oversee and regulate everything, inevitably you will end up with unethical and power-hungry politicians in that federal government, who are more than happy to hand that power over to the corporations, for a hefty fee of course. It has happened time and time again. That is why true conservatives are against big government, period. Your characterization of Ron Paul and other Libertarians as being for the wars and for big government when it supports their policies is disingenuous. Anyone who has actually listened to what Ron Paul has to say knows that. Meanwhile, the one person who is actually in a position to do something about the wars has done nothing, which you conveniently ignore. Again, your bias is showing, big time.

For the record, Ron Paul is not for big government even when he personally agrees with the particular policy. For example, he is against abortion, but he does not support a federal ban on abortion. He doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage. I don't know how much more principled a person could get! Also, I have never heard any Libertarian or Tea Party member say anything about supporting federal funding for private religious schools, ever. Where are you coming up with this? If you're complaining that they don't bring it up, well, im guessing that they have more important and pressing issues on their minds right now.

Your characterization of Libertarians as having "an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism" proves that you totally don't get it. Libertarians are trying to point out that corporations run our freaking government, via government regulations! Our government just gave away billions of our tax dollars to big banks, then they handed the insurance companies millions of new customers on a god damn platter, and now they want to reward BP for the oil "spill" by giving them cap and trade! Good grief.......please think a little before you spout off next time.......is that too much to ask?

someguy

06-22-2010, 11:14 PM

I can't disagree with just about any of this comprehensive essay, and I strongly agree with much of it. I now think labels like liberal, conservative and libertarian have lost all meaning and are being used to keep us divided. Obama is as much a puppet of corporate America as Bush was, and his supporters are in similar denial.

I'm beginning to doubt there's a political solution to our predicament. Likely, we'll continue on the same self-destructive path until our enormously overstrained institutions and infrastructure collapse, much as Greece, Spain and Italy are doing at this very moment. It may be even more spectacular, so try to enjoy yourselves, these are truly the good ol' days.

You're exactly right, Clancy. Very well put. There is no political solution. The powers that be have succeeded in keeping the public divided with their incredibly transparent propaganda. And it will be spectacular, to say the least. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Hotspring 44

06-23-2010, 12:34 AM

You're exactly right, Clancy. Very well put. There is no political solution. The powers that be have succeeded in keeping the public divided with their incredibly transparent propaganda. And it will be spectacular, to say the least. Enjoy it while it lasts.

My apologies in advance for being a bit off topic but I thought somebody might like this anyway.
James Otto : These Are The Good Old Days Lyrics:
JAMES OTTO - THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS LYRICS (https://www.metrolyrics.com/these-are-the-good-old-days-lyrics-james-otto.html)

5 Mb mp3 DL song:
These Are the Good Ole Days - James Otto.mp3 (https://www.mediafire.com/?m31mahyiwzh)

Sciguy

06-23-2010, 03:03 AM

I am utterly disgusted with your above post, and even more disgusted that Barry has given it gratitude.

I am not a Libertarian, as I have stated before. And I have not been silent about the oil spill. I have not posted on this thread because the main premise of the thread is too retarded for words. You obviously don't really want to know what my perspective is on this oil spill, or you would have looked it up. I'll give you a hint: Tony Hayward and Goldman Sachs both sold off a huge percentage of their BP stocks right before the spill. And now Obama is trying to give BP exactly what they have lobbied for, cap and trade.

...

You have completely missed the point of what Libertarians, Tea Partyers, etc, are all about. Completely. In theory, government regulations are supposed to protect the public. In reality, however, they f*ck us over royally and protect the corporations. Need an example?

Okay, lets start with farm subsidies. Liberals love to complain about factory farms. But why do we even have factory farms anyway? Its because the Department of Agriculture subsidizes corn and soy, making them artificially cheap. So what do the farmers feed the cows? You guessed it. And when the cows are no longer eating grass, their natural diet, it doesn't really make economic sense to let them roam free, does it? Its much easier, from an economic standpoint, to keep them confined in a building. Which leads to increased illness due to the close quarters they live in, which leads to farmers adding antibiotics to the feed, which leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So now we have superbugs, unhappy diseased cows, and beef that is no longer healthy for human consumption due to the improper diet of the cow. We have a dead zone in the ocean from all the agricultural run-off into the rivers, seriously depleted topsoil, and lots of air pollution from all of the farm machinery that it takes to produce such copious amounts of corn and soy. Oh yeah, and we have the agribusiness corporations and Monsanto making billions of dollars. Your government regulations really protected us, don't you think, Valley Oak?

Of course, if you suggest that we get rid of the Department of Agriculture (which is responsible for such reprehensible policies), like Ron Paul has, you get called a lunatic. But when the subsidies are the cause of the problem, the only sensical thing to do is get rid of them. People seem to think that no one would know how to farm if the government didn't tell them how to do it. But we did all right before the subsidies, didn't we?

By the way, all of the other agricultural regulations are designed to put small farmers out of business. Seriously, it is next to freaking impossible to start a small farm or maintain one in the US unless you already own land and have tons of capital. The whole system is designed to concentrate everything in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy agribusinesspeople.

how about organic standards? Liberals love organic, right? Well, unfortunately organic doesn't mean shit anymore, thats why local farms like Laguna Farm have to advertise their produce as "beyond organic." The reason is that huge agribusiness corporations want to sell their stuff as organic for a much higher price, but they don't want to have to deal with pesky rules that drive their costs up. So they lobby. Now, if you go to the store and buy an organic "free-range" chicken, the life of that chicken is essentially identical to a conventional chicken. The only differences are that the feed is made of organic corn and soy instead of conventional, and they can't add antibiotics. That actually makes for a huge health risk since the chickens are still basically living in close confinement. The "free-range" part comes from the tiny dirt yard that the chickens technically have access to, if they can squeeze themselves through the other chickens to get to it. This is a world away from the real life a chicken is supposed to have. Thanks to your super awesome government regulations, it is incredibly expensive to raise chickens the right way. I pay $5 a pound for pastured whole chickens from a local farmer, and he actually charges less than most other farmers in the area. The costs are just that high.

Just in case you still need another example of government regulations gone wrong, Obama promised to pass "healthcare reform" because the insurance companies were victimizing their customers, then he turned around and required all Americans to purchase insurance! Now we are all slaves to the insurance companies, whether we like it or not. At least before we could choose to opt out. Seriously, for people who claim to believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose, liberals sure don't seem to care about freedom of choice when it comes to other things.

The problem is that when you give the federal government huge amounts of power to oversee and regulate everything, inevitably you will end up with unethical and power-hungry politicians in that federal government, who are more than happy to hand that power over to the corporations, for a hefty fee of course. It has happened time and time again. That is why true conservatives are against big government, period. Your characterization of Ron Paul and other Libertarians as being for the wars and for big government when it supports their policies is disingenuous. Anyone who has actually listened to what Ron Paul has to say knows that. Meanwhile, the one person who is actually in a position to do something about the wars has done nothing, which you conveniently ignore. Again, your bias is showing, big time.

For the record, Ron Paul is not for big government even when he personally agrees with the particular policy. For example, he is against abortion, but he does not support a federal ban on abortion. He doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage. I don't know how much more principled a person could get! Also, I have never heard any Libertarian or Tea Party member say anything about supporting federal funding for private religious schools, ever. Where are you coming up with this? If you're complaining that they don't bring it up, well, im guessing that they have more important and pressing issues on their minds right now.

Your characterization of Libertarians as having "an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism" proves that you totally don't get it. Libertarians are trying to point out that corporations run our freaking government, via government regulations! Our government just gave away billions of our tax dollars to big banks, then they handed the insurance companies millions of new customers on a god damn platter, and now they want to reward BP for the oil "spill" by giving them cap and trade! Good grief.......please think a little before you spout off next time.......is that too much to ask?\

I'm not going to follow you down past the Libertarian distinctions but I love seeing you tar and feather gov't regulations. Except ...

What would you say about the regulations about those awful POLLUTERS and their awful HAZARDOUS WASTE? I don't want to put any words into your mouth but it seems like a hundred percent of Americans, even the ones most enlightened about the corruption of gov't and their fealty to corporations, take those regulations at face value and defend to the limit the need for regulations and then more regulation. No other response is allowed to be contemplated. The same gov't that sends your cousin to be maimed in a foreign adventure for the benefit of a weapons manufacturer is somehow assumed to have all of our interests at heart when it comes to pollution control. Does this make sense to you?

The pollution regulations serve the interests of the regulated companies in a simple way. While they don't leave the door open for wide-open cowboy environmental despoliation, they do carve out some part-per-million piece of the environment that can be legally contaminated and no one is allowed to complain. They do this for thousands of different chemicals and products and mixtures and complex reactants. The cumulative effect, while eliminating burning rivers which are really bad PR, leave vast swaths of waterways and soil and air and our bodies legally able to be contaminated. Under these conditions, the rest of us are reduced to impossible legal contortions to try to cut through the corporate and legalistic thickets. Have you ever looked at the literature and cases on Superfund? Believe me, you don't want to. What a sweet gift to the polluter

What I would want instead is to do intensive research on how to redesign chemical systems so that no pollution at all is allowed to escape to the environment. Not left up to inadequate best available technology, like BP's inadequate blowout preventer, but intensive, gov't supported, university level research on zero discard. Yet there is no such thing anywhere, as the fiasco in the Gulf shows. There are just weasely regulations that ultimately protect almost nothing.

When no independent research is done to protect us and the environment, is it any wonder that we end up with half measures masquerading as environmental protection.

So, are you ready to follow me down this path, or is pollution regulation somehow the exception, the regulation that is truly devoted to the public good, pure and selfless.

I am just posing the question.

Sciguy

Valley Oak

06-23-2010, 07:29 AM

I have edited this post.

Clancy, I knew there was no political solution to our predicaments for more than 25 years now, since I was in my early to mid twenties. What have you been thinking all these years? That electing the "right man (or woman)" was going to save the country??? Please.

Clancy, let me say this for the 1000th time on this board:
America's problems are systemic.

Our political institutions must be fundamentally reformed. We need a new Constitution. We need a new electoral process. We need a multi-party system. We need Proportional Representation. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post. No one elected under the current system is going to be able to do anything substantial. Long before I voted for Obama I already new that he was not going to do what was needed for this country for two basic reasons:

If Obama was the kind of man (like Kucinich or Nader) who was actually going to really change things in this country, then he NEVER would have been elected in the first place because he would have been perceived as a cook by the electorate and a threat by the establishment. He would have been marginalized.

Precisely because our system is fundamentally flawed, Obama CANNOT make the necessary reforms that he IS willing to make. (Add to this the fanatic opposition in Congress to his health care overhaul from Republicans and their Libertarian crackpots.)

(As an aside, Republicans are STAUNCHLY opposed to same-sex marriage, and while this gross bigotry comes as no surprise, it is very telling that their Libertarian brothers, who say they believe in maximum individual liberties, are also {hypocritically} opposed.)

There's a lot more to say but it all essentially comes on top of these two basic facts. For example, voting for Obama was voting for the lesser of two evils. Same old, same old. The system has to change.

Another observation is that because of the way our system is designed, it relies WAY too much on a cult of the personality or the "Wise King" notion. The POTUS is asked to do what no person should ever be asked to: everything. It is impossible. Not only that, but the irony is that when a Wise King is elected POTUS then the system itself does not allow that person to do all of those benevolent things. That is one of the great paradoxes and flaws of American democracy.

I will vote for Obama again in 2012. I'm not going to sit idly by and watch some Republican or Libertarian like Bush, Reagan, Nixon, or Paul take office. Not if I can help it. Voting in American is largely about "damage control," not democracy.

I can't disagree with just about any of this comprehensive essay, and I strongly agree with much of it. I now think labels like liberal, conservative and libertarian have lost all meaning and are being used to keep us divided. Obama is as much a puppet of corporate America as Bush was, and his supporters are in similar denial.

I'm beginning to doubt there's a political solution to our predicament. Likely, we'll continue on the same self-destructive path until our enormously overstrained institutions and infrastructure collapse, much as Greece, Spain and Italy are doing at this very moment. It may be even more spectacular, so try to enjoy yourselves, these are truly the good ol' days.

Valley Oak

06-23-2010, 08:15 AM

Brad,

I would like to express gratitude to you for your post, not because I agree with you, but because it is a long, thought out and sincere message. It took you at least some time and some work to write all of that out and contribute to our discussion. Thank you. I appreciate it and so do others.

Regarding the content of your message, I will politely disagree with you, without my mincing any words or points.

Edward

I am utterly disgusted with your above post, and even more disgusted that Barry has given it gratitude.

I am not a Libertarian, as I have stated before. And I have not been silent about the oil spill. I have not posted on this thread because the main premise of the thread is too retarded for words. You obviously don't really want to know what my perspective is on this oil spill, or you would have looked it up. I'll give you a hint: Tony Hayward and Goldman Sachs both sold off a huge percentage of their BP stocks right before the spill. And now Obama is trying to give BP exactly what they have lobbied for, cap and trade.

Ron Paul is a Republican because if you look up the original Republican Party Platform (which I'm sure you won't), it is astoundingly great. I can't disagree with a single thing it says, and I am a person who used to consider "conservative" to be a swear word. In fact, the platform is very similar to the original Democratic Party Platform. Republicans started calling themselves Libertarians when the Republican party essentially abandoned their own platform. Ron Paul simply decided not to do that, because the Republican Party Platform is still right on. Nowadays, when most people speak of Republicans, they are really talking about Neo-conservatives, something entirely different.

I am not a fan of Rand Paul, maybe that's why I don't talk about him. However, his comments about Obama could hardly be considered a "vicious attack". Your bias is showing, dude. Personally, I did not like Obamas "boot on the throat" comment, either. I didn't like it because its pure rhetoric designed to distract a retarded American public from the fact that BP and other corporations essentially run this country, and that is why they get away with things like this oil spill. Obama may as well work for BP, they have given him so much money. And now Obama is using the oil spill as an excuse to pass a carbon tax, which BP has lobbied for. Coincidence? I think not.

You have completely missed the point of what Libertarians, Tea Partyers, etc, are all about. Completely. In theory, government regulations are supposed to protect the public. In reality, however, they f*ck us over royally and protect the corporations. Need an example?

Okay, lets start with farm subsidies. Liberals love to complain about factory farms. But why do we even have factory farms anyway? Its because the Department of Agriculture subsidizes corn and soy, making them artificially cheap. So what do the farmers feed the cows? You guessed it. And when the cows are no longer eating grass, their natural diet, it doesn't really make economic sense to let them roam free, does it? Its much easier, from an economic standpoint, to keep them confined in a building. Which leads to increased illness due to the close quarters they live in, which leads to farmers adding antibiotics to the feed, which leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So now we have superbugs, unhappy diseased cows, and beef that is no longer healthy for human consumption due to the improper diet of the cow. We have a dead zone in the ocean from all the agricultural run-off into the rivers, seriously depleted topsoil, and lots of air pollution from all of the farm machinery that it takes to produce such copious amounts of corn and soy. Oh yeah, and we have the agribusiness corporations and Monsanto making billions of dollars. Your government regulations really protected us, don't you think, Valley Oak?

Of course, if you suggest that we get rid of the Department of Agriculture (which is responsible for such reprehensible policies), like Ron Paul has, you get called a lunatic. But when the subsidies are the cause of the problem, the only sensical thing to do is get rid of them. People seem to think that no one would know how to farm if the government didn't tell them how to do it. But we did all right before the subsidies, didn't we?

By the way, all of the other agricultural regulations are designed to put small farmers out of business. Seriously, it is next to freaking impossible to start a small farm or maintain one in the US unless you already own land and have tons of capital. The whole system is designed to concentrate everything in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy agribusinesspeople.

how about organic standards? Liberals love organic, right? Well, unfortunately organic doesn't mean shit anymore, thats why local farms like Laguna Farm have to advertise their produce as "beyond organic." The reason is that huge agribusiness corporations want to sell their stuff as organic for a much higher price, but they don't want to have to deal with pesky rules that drive their costs up. So they lobby. Now, if you go to the store and buy an organic "free-range" chicken, the life of that chicken is essentially identical to a conventional chicken. The only differences are that the feed is made of organic corn and soy instead of conventional, and they can't add antibiotics. That actually makes for a huge health risk since the chickens are still basically living in close confinement. The "free-range" part comes from the tiny dirt yard that the chickens technically have access to, if they can squeeze themselves through the other chickens to get to it. This is a world away from the real life a chicken is supposed to have. Thanks to your super awesome government regulations, it is incredibly expensive to raise chickens the right way. I pay $5 a pound for pastured whole chickens from a local farmer, and he actually charges less than most other farmers in the area. The costs are just that high.

Just in case you still need another example of government regulations gone wrong, Obama promised to pass "healthcare reform" because the insurance companies were victimizing their customers, then he turned around and required all Americans to purchase insurance! Now we are all slaves to the insurance companies, whether we like it or not. At least before we could choose to opt out. Seriously, for people who claim to believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose, liberals sure don't seem to care about freedom of choice when it comes to other things.

The problem is that when you give the federal government huge amounts of power to oversee and regulate everything, inevitably you will end up with unethical and power-hungry politicians in that federal government, who are more than happy to hand that power over to the corporations, for a hefty fee of course. It has happened time and time again. That is why true conservatives are against big government, period. Your characterization of Ron Paul and other Libertarians as being for the wars and for big government when it supports their policies is disingenuous. Anyone who has actually listened to what Ron Paul has to say knows that. Meanwhile, the one person who is actually in a position to do something about the wars has done nothing, which you conveniently ignore. Again, your bias is showing, big time.

For the record, Ron Paul is not for big government even when he personally agrees with the particular policy. For example, he is against abortion, but he does not support a federal ban on abortion. He doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage. I don't know how much more principled a person could get! Also, I have never heard any Libertarian or Tea Party member say anything about supporting federal funding for private religious schools, ever. Where are you coming up with this? If you're complaining that they don't bring it up, well, im guessing that they have more important and pressing issues on their minds right now.

Your characterization of Libertarians as having "an almost divine servitude to corporatism and capitalism" proves that you totally don't get it. Libertarians are trying to point out that corporations run our freaking government, via government regulations! Our government just gave away billions of our tax dollars to big banks, then they handed the insurance companies millions of new customers on a god damn platter, and now they want to reward BP for the oil "spill" by giving them cap and trade! Good grief.......please think a little before you spout off next time.......is that too much to ask?

Clancy

06-23-2010, 09:40 AM

Obama is not the lesser of two evils. A good argument could be made that he's the greater of two evils, because he pretends to be an agent of change, while maintaining and escalating the worst of Bush era policies.

Imagine for a moment that GW Bush somehow served a third term and did exactly everything Obama is doing. We wouldn't even notice the difference, except for his vocal support of your pet issue. If Bush were doing what Obama is doing, you'd at least be condemning rather than excusing him.

And finally, Obama's alleged 'willingness to bring change but the system won't allow it' is irrelevant. For instance, Goldman Sachs, looter of millions of Americans pensions, engineer of Greece's collapse (making billions in the process) and Obama's largest contributor, got a tidy gift of $12 billion in taxpayer dollars from Obama the moment he took office. That's criminal.

I have edited this post.

Clancy, I knew there was no political solution to our predicaments for more than 25 years now, since I was in my early to mid twenties. What have you been thinking all these years? That electing the "right man (or woman)" was going to save the country??? Please.

Clancy, let me say this for the 1000th time on this board:
America's problems are systemic.

Our political institutions must be fundamentally reformed. We need a new Constitution. We need a new electoral process. We need a multi-party system. We need Proportional Representation. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post. No one elected under the current system is going to be able to do anything substantial. Long before I voted for Obama I already new that he was not going to do what was needed for this country for two basic reasons:

If Obama was the kind of man (like Kucinich or Nader) who was actually going to really change things in this country, then he NEVER would have been elected in the first place because he would have been perceived as a cook by the electorate and a threat by the establishment. He would have been marginalized.

Precisely because our system is fundamentally flawed, Obama CANNOT make the necessary reforms that he IS willing to make. (Add to this the fanatic opposition in Congress to his health care overhaul from Republicans and their Libertarian crackpots.)

(As an aside, Republicans are STAUNCHLY opposed to same-sex marriage, and while this gross bigotry comes as no surprise, it is very telling that their Libertarian brothers, who say they believe in maximum individual liberties, are also {hypocritically} opposed.)

There's a lot more to say but it all essentially comes on top of these two basic facts. For example, voting for Obama was voting for the lesser of two evils. Same old, same old. The system has to change.

Another observation is that because of the way our system is designed, it relies WAY too much on a cult of the personality or the "Wise King" notion. The POTUS is asked to do what no person should ever be asked to: everything. It is impossible. Not only that, but the irony is that when a Wise King is elected POTUS then the system itself does not allow that person to do all of those benevolent things. That is one of the great paradoxes and flaws of American democracy.

I will vote for Obama again in 2012. I'm not going to sit idly by and watch some Republican or Libertarian like Bush, Reagan, Nixon, or Paul take office. Not if I can help it. Voting in American is largely about "damage control," not democracy.

someguy

06-23-2010, 10:06 AM

\

I'm not going to follow you down past the Libertarian distinctions but I love seeing you tar and feather gov't regulations. Except ...

What would you say about the regulations about those awful POLLUTERS and their awful HAZARDOUS WASTE? I don't want to put any words into your mouth but it seems like a hundred percent of Americans, even the ones most enlightened about the corruption of gov't and their fealty to corporations, take those regulations at face value and defend to the limit the need for regulations and then more regulation. No other response is allowed to be contemplated. The same gov't that sends your cousin to be maimed in a foreign adventure for the benefit of a weapons manufacturer is somehow assumed to have all of our interests at heart when it comes to pollution control. Does this make sense to you?

Hi Sciguy,

I completely agree. A government that is willing to send young people to war for the benefit of corporations absolutely cannot be trusted with our health. Pollution regulation is no better than any other kind of government regulation, and I do think that in the vast majority of cases it serves the polluting corporations rather than truly protecting the health of the public. It does essentially legalize pollution. And you are right, there is almost a religious fervor when it comes to defending environmental regulations and an unwillingness to consider alternatives. I see the same attitude when it comes to climate change.

There are also tons of loopholes to get around the few regulations that actually serve the public interest. A great example is sodium fluoride, which is a hazardous waste product left over from the fertilizer industry. Normally sodium fluoride would have to be neutralized at a high-rated hazardous waste facility at the cost of $1.40 per gallon or more, depending on the amount of contamination with heavy metals such as arsenic or lead. Instead, these corporations sell the sodium fluoride, unrefined, to municipalities where they add it to our water in the name of preventing tooth decay. Problem solved for the corporations. Sodium fluoride has been proven in many studies to lower IQ significantly. The bags of sodium fluoride say "Deadly Poison" on them. The official goal of the EPA is zero ppm of arsenic and lead in our drinking water. Why then do they allow our cities to dump this crap directly in our water? I think its clear where their loyalties really lie. The EPA's scientists actually oppose fluoridation, but they don't get to make the decisions.

I used to think government regulations were necessary to prevent this kind of thing. Now I understand that the regulations actually make it easier for unethical people to do terrible things for profit. We can't take action against these people for poisoning us and our children, because what they are doing is technically legal.

I also agree that zero pollution is the way to go. Its what the people want. We have the technology to do this already, the only thing stopping us is vested interest. Part of the problem is that research that doesn't support the status quo doesn't get government funding, period. And when good research is actually conducted, no one hears about it, because the mainstream media is in bed with the federal government and the mega-corporations. Beneficial technology and information is being suppressed.

Valley Oak

06-23-2010, 10:18 AM

Okay then, Clancy. How about this: who did you vote for POTUS in 2008? Or did you even vote? And why?!

Gotcha!
(Because you can't allow yourself to answer the question directly and honestly, such as, "I voted for..." or "I didn't vote at all." You'll find a way to wiggle your way out of it cause you're smart.)
;-D

The truth hurts, citizen. Especially when you've cornered yourself in a bad position in public.

Edward

Obama is not the lesser of two evils. A good argument could be made that he's the greater of two evils, because he pretends to be an agent of change, while maintaining and escalating the worst of Bush era policies.

Imagine for a moment that GW Bush somehow served a third term and did exactly everything Obama is doing. We wouldn't even notice the difference, except for his vocal support of your pet issue. If Bush were doing what Obama is doing, you'd at least be condemning rather than excusing him.

And finally, Obama's alleged 'willingness to bring change but the system won't allow it' is irrelevant. For instance, Goldman Sachs, looter of millions of Americans pensions, engineer of Greece's collapse (making billions in the process) and Obama's largest contributor, got a tidy gift of $12 billion in taxpayer dollars from Obama the moment he took office. That's criminal.

someguy

06-23-2010, 10:20 AM

Brad,

I would like to express gratitude to you for your post, not because I agree with you, but because it is a long, thought out and sincere message. It took you at least some time and some work to write all of that out and contribute to our discussion. Thank you. I appreciate it and so do others.

Regarding the content of your message, I will politely disagree with you, without my mincing any words or points.

Edward

Thank you for your polite disagreement and acknowledgement of my sincerity. Its so much nicer when everyone is respectful of differing viewpoints. We probably have more in common than is immediately obvious. We both care about the Earth, and we both care about human rights, equality, and personal choice. I really like Clancy's point that the powers that be want to keep the people divided......just think how much we could accomplish if we were to work together on the issues where we have common ground, rather than arguing about our differences.

Clancy

06-23-2010, 10:24 AM

To my chagrin, I voted for Obama. Had the GOP won, you would at least join me in condemning them for exactly what Obama is doing now.

Okay then, Clancy. How about this: who did you vote for POTUS in 2008? Or did you even vote? And why?!

Gotcha!
(Because you can't allow yourself to answer the question directly and honestly, such as, "I voted for..." or "I didn't vote at all." You'll find a way to wiggle your way out of it cause you're smart.)
;-D

The truth hurts, citizen. Especially when you've cornered yourself in a bad position in public.

Edward

Valley Oak

06-23-2010, 10:29 AM

Thank you for proving me wrong. Your answer was short and sweet.

To my chagrin, I voted for Obama. Had the GOP won, you would at least join me in condemning them for exactly what Obama is doing now.

Hotspring 44

06-23-2010, 03:04 PM

LenInSebastopol

06-23-2010, 07:48 PM

Hi Sciguy,

I completely agree. A government that is willing to send young people to war for the benefit of corporations absolutely cannot be trusted with our health. Pollution regulation is no better than any other kind of government regulation, and I do think that in the vast majority of cases it serves the polluting corporations rather than truly protecting the health of the public. It does essentially legalize pollution. There are also tons of loopholes to get around the few regulations that actually serve the public interest. A great example is sodium fluoride, which is a hazardous waste product left over from the fertilizer industry. Normally sodium fluoride would have to be neutralized at a high-rated hazardous waste facility at the cost of $1.40 per gallon or more, depending on the amount of contamination with heavy metals such as arsenic or lead. Instead, these corporations sell the sodium fluoride, unrefined, to municipalities where they add it to our water in the name of preventing tooth decay. Problem solved for the corporations. Sodium fluoride has been proven in many studies to lower IQ significantly. The bags of sodium fluoride say "Deadly Poison" on them. The official goal of the EPA is zero ppm of arsenic and lead in our drinking water. Why then do they allow our cities to dump this crap directly in our water? I think its clear where their loyalties really lie. I used to think government regulations were necessary to prevent this kind of thing. Now I understand that the regulations actually make it easier for unethical people to do terrible things for profit. I also agree that zero pollution is the way to go. Its what the people want. We have the technology to do this already, the only thing stopping us is vested interest. Part of the problem is that research that doesn't support the status quo doesn't get government funding, period. And when good research is actually conducted, no one hears about it, because the mainstream media is in bed with the federal government and the mega-corporations. Beneficial technology and information is being suppressed.

Full circle. I recall in 1958 the city of S.F. directed fluoride to be placed into the water supply. The John Birch Society and their like rallied against it for the same reasons listed above! They said it would lead to socialized, gov't regulated medicine. LOL
The regulation issue is "influenced" by lobbyists and passed by those-of-no-character-who-seek-power.
Though I would enjoy a libertarian thrust, it is clear there are those issues, like pollution, that are not 'market driven' with the only recourse is to have gov't create rules. The problem is exacerbated by those in gov't that cry "do it now" as they have an agenda already in their pockets and rather than follow sound reasoning, those that are elected to protect us follow the money. That Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1898 comes to mind. It wound up protecting those businesses that it was to address, closing the door for competition, as I understand it.
Disagreeing with some that it is systemic, the flaw lies within us and our voting for those scalawags who do not apply the principles of the Constitution. I kind of like the bill Ron Paul proposes every year which indicates, "show me where in the Constitution every new bill is derived from and I will vote for it", and it never gets out of the hat. Conundrums are us.

Valley Oak

01-20-2013, 12:57 PM

The "Libertarian thrust" ended as a whimper in the last presidential elections, November 2012.

Full circle. I recall in 1958 the city of S.F. directed fluoride to be placed into the water supply. The John Birch Society and their like rallied against it for the same reasons listed above! They said it would lead to socialized, gov't regulated medicine. LOL

The regulation issue is "influenced" by lobbyists and passed by those-of-no-character-who-seek-power.
Though I would enjoy a libertarian thrust, ...