Let’s Call Establishment Dems What They Are: REPUBLICANS

[Satan]

[Kristy]

More pseudo-left horseshit.


Kill yourself, slave FORD

[Satan]

[Kristy]

When were you first diagnosed with autism?

[cadaverdog]

Seriously Ford your "they're not really democrats" bullshit is getting mighty old. When are you going to accept the fact that neither party gives a flying fuck about you (or anybody else that isn't lining their pockets with money) or your ideas on what they should do or be?

[Satan]

One party fascist states aren't my idea of fun. If that's what you're into, try Somalia. All the guns you want, lots of religious fanatacism, no government or regulation to get in the way.

[cadaverdog]

You can't just say Obama or Hillary or whoever are not democrats just because you don't like they way they operate. Obviously the powers behind the democratic party aprove or they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have within the party.

[cadaverdog]

One party fascist states aren't my idea of fun. If that's what you're into, try Somalia. All the guns you want, lots of religious fanatacism, no government or regulation to get in the way.

Who's talking about one party facist states?

[Satan]

The Demoncratic Party has a certain set of principles. While Candidate Obama made a great show of those principles, President Obama did not do so, in action. Same could be said for Bill Clinton, who also gave some memorable speeches back in the day about a "new covenant" and "building a bridge to the 21st century".

The reality is that, with Bill & Barry merely continuing the fucked up foreign AND domestic polices of the BCE (with only slight differences in management) not only do we not have any 21st century bridges (or other infrastructure) but the existing 20th century infrastructure is crumbling around us, and the money that should be used to fix it has either been stolen by billionaire inheritance brats, or wasted on wars based on the paranoia of Russian born lunatics who fraudulently claim to be descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

This ain't the party of FDR, JFK, or Jimmy Carter. Let alone Tommy Jefferson.

[cadaverdog]

This ain't the party of FDR, JFK, or Jimmy Carter. Let alone Tommy Jefferson.

The same party that got us into two world wars, The Korean Conflict and Viet Nam.

[Satan]

The same party that got us into two world wars, The Korean Conflict and Viet Nam.

Well, you're half right. Truman certainly made the wrong call on Korea. And it's certainly questionable whether Woodrow Wilson should have dragged the US into World War I because a handful of Americans were dumb enough to be passengers on somebody else's boat, while that country was at war. I would have stayed out of it.

FDR certainly didn't have a choice after Pearl Harbor. And JFK tried to get out of Vietnam before it really started (though it had been building since the late 50s, so he inherited it from the BCE/Eisenhower. He actually had the paper work on his desk to get the Hell out of Vietnam when he took a certain field trip to Dallas in 1963. And apparently once the BCE/CIA demonstrated how committed they were to keeping their "Golden Triangle" heroin smuggling route open, LBJ didn't question it again. Until 1968, when he also tried to get out of it, but was betrayed at the end by BCE/Nixon operatives making treasonous deals behind his back during the campaign.

[Terry]

You can't just say Obama or Hillary or whoever are not democrats just because you don't like they way they operate. Obviously the powers behind the democratic party aprove or they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have within the party.

I think the broader point is that the present-day Democratic Party has substantially much less to do with traditional liberalism or a truly progressive agenda than what the Democratic Party stood for in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The Clintons have always TALKED a good liberal game, but Obama has actually presided over the enactment of far more legislation that could be loosely defined as liberal or progressive in the traditional sense than either of the Clintons ever did. However, the present-day Democratic Party has far more to do with corporatism than liberalism.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a democrat and is running for the democratic nomination, but that's about as far as it goes with the Clintons. If one looks at what Bill Clinton actually DID while in office, it was basically a continuum from the Reagan, HW Bush years and slotted nicely between the Bush presidencies in terms of actual policies.

[Seshmeister]

Well, you're half right. Truman certainly made the wrong call on Korea. And it's certainly questionable whether Woodrow Wilson should have dragged the US into World War I because a handful of Americans were dumb enough to be passengers on somebody else's boat, while that country was at war. I would have stayed out of it.

There is a lot more to it than the Lusitania.

As ever follow the money, that's where the real power is. By 1917 France and Britain owed the US vast amounts of money after waging a nightmarish war for years. America had to enter the war to make sure the right side won to make sure they got their money repaid.

[cadaverdog]

Well, you're half right.

Incorrect. I'm 100% right. The president (if he's doing his job) has the last say on whether or not we go to war. I'm not saying those decisions were wrong, I don't agree with you on Korea but I think most people would agree getting involved in Viet Nam was a big mistake. Ike and JFK (who you left out of the conversation) had the good sense not to send combatant troops over there. LBJ didn't. I've never looked into the specifics of WW1 but not entering WW2 might have been the biggest mistake ever. I'm not sure Hitler would have tried to come across the pond if he had overtaken England but the Soviets might have still come out on top and annexed most of Europe. If that would have happened we might all be speaking Russian right now.

[cadaverdog]

I think the broader point is that the present-day Democratic Party has substantially much less to do with traditional liberalism or a truly progressive agenda than what the Democratic Party stood for in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

I agree but then again we don't live in a fantasy world where one party is the good guys and the other is evil incarnate like Ford does. Maybe someday in the future the US will have more than two parties in control of our government and then we'll have a better chance of electing a president that actually wants to do our bidding instead of doing the bidding of the people who actually call the shots now, be it the BCE, The Illuminati, The Koch Brothers, or Ronald McDonald.

[Terry]

I agree but then again we don't live in a fantasy world where one party is the good guys and the other is evil incarnate like Ford does. Maybe someday in the future the US will have more than two parties in control of our government and then we'll have a better chance of electing a president that actually wants to do our bidding instead of doing the bidding of the people who actually call the shots now, be it the BCE, The Illuminati, The Koch Brothers, or Ronald McDonald.

No, we certainly don't live a country politically where one party is the "good guys" and one party is the "bad guys". We live in a country where there are 2 major political parties, and the net effect of this bipartisan rule - regardless of which party is in power, so there is PLENTY of blame to go around - has been a increasing stratification of wealth and a concentration of power that has taken several decades to get to where we are now, but here we are.

We can't really call the GOP a bunch of war mongers when virtually every elected official from both parties voted to go to war in Iraq...twice. And we can't really call the Democratic Party the party of working class people when they basically went along lock-step with the Republican party down the line in terms of decreasing the tax rates on top earners and signing into law austerity measures. Sure, there are matters of degrees between the two parties in terms of differences to the extent with which these tax policies and austerity measures were enacted. In the end, though, the differences are just that...a matter of degrees.

Perhaps the largest differences are to be found in specialized social wedge issues, but does it really matter as much if same-sex people get to legally marry or marijuana is slowly being made legal when the difference in pay bewteen CEOs and the other 90% of the nation is something on average of 500% and CLIMBING? Yet people would rather talk about who gets to pee in which North Carolina bath room than that.

I remember reading of a similar economic situation in France in the late 1700s. It didn't work out too well for the 1% back there and then.

[Terry]

I agree but then again we don't live in a fantasy world where one party is the good guys and the other is evil incarnate like Ford does. Maybe someday in the future the US will have more than two parties in control of our government and then we'll have a better chance of electing a president that actually wants to do our bidding instead of doing the bidding of the people who actually call the shots now, be it the BCE, The Illuminati, The Koch Brothers, or Ronald McDonald.

No, we certainly don't live a country politically where one party is the "good guys" and one party is the "bad guys". We live in a country where there are 2 major political parties, and the net effect of this bipartisan rule - regardless of which party is in power, so there is PLENTY of blame to go around - has been a increasing stratification of wealth and a concentration of power that has taken several decades to get to where we are now, but here we are.

We can't really call the GOP a bunch of war mongers when virtually every elected official from both parties voted to go to war in Iraq...twice. And we can't really call the Democratic Party the party of working class people when they basically went along lock-step with the Republican party down the line in terms of decreasing the tax rates on top earners and signing into law austerity measures. Sure, there are matters of degrees between the two parties in terms of differences to the extent with which these tax policies and austerity measures were enacted. In the end, though, the differences are just that...a matter of degrees.

Perhaps the largest differences are to be found in specialized social wedge issues, but does it really matter as much if same-sex people get to legally marry or marijuana is slowly being made legal when the difference in pay bewteen CEOs and the other 90% of the nation is something on average of 500% and CLIMBING? Yet people would rather talk about who gets to pee in which North Carolina bath room than that.

I remember reading of a similar economic situation in France in the late 1700s. It didn't work out too well for the 1% back there and then.

[Nitro Express]

The two party system currently is two ass cheeks on the same butt with Goldman Sachs tattooed on each one.

[Nitro Express]

I agree but then again we don't live in a fantasy world where one party is the good guys and the other is evil incarnate like Ford does. Maybe someday in the future the US will have more than two parties in control of our government and then we'll have a better chance of electing a president that actually wants to do our bidding instead of doing the bidding of the people who actually call the shots now, be it the BCE, The Illuminati, The Koch Brothers, or Ronald McDonald.

George Washington advised against forming political parties because they would destroy the democratic voting process. He was spot on. The major problem is it costs so much money to get elected these days. They say Obama spent close to $2 billion in the last election. That's some crazy money. In other words, if you can't come up with the dough on your own you have to sell your soul and that's the problem.

[Nitro Express]

I think the broader point is that the present-day Democratic Party has substantially much less to do with traditional liberalism or a truly progressive agenda than what the Democratic Party stood for in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The Clintons have always TALKED a good liberal game, but Obama has actually presided over the enactment of far more legislation that could be loosely defined as liberal or progressive in the traditional sense than either of the Clintons ever did. However, the present-day Democratic Party has far more to do with corporatism than liberalism.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a democrat and is running for the democratic nomination, but that's about as far as it goes with the Clintons. If one looks at what Bill Clinton actually DID while in office, it was basically a continuum from the Reagan, HW Bush years and slotted nicely between the Bush presidencies in terms of actual policies.

I think the Clintons were con artists after power and money from the get go. They just snowed the liberal base they needed to get into power. The US has ran from Wall Street for a long time. Most the politicians work for Wall Street. The whole conservative vs liberal thing was just something to divide the population over and keep people busy infighting each other while Wall Street robbed us blind.

[Terry]

I think the Clintons were con artists after power and money from the get go. They just snowed the liberal base they needed to get into power. The US has ran from Wall Street for a long time. Most the politicians work for Wall Street. The whole conservative vs liberal thing was just something to divide the population over and keep people busy infighting each other while Wall Street robbed us blind.

And the whole conservative vs. liberal thing still works, time and time again, to distract voters from the larger issues of power, wealth and influence. Much the same way as issues of race continue to divide the lower classes, when taken as a whole the lower classes collectively have much more in common with each other than they do with the top 10% of earners in this country.

It's easy for a poor white guy to look at illegal Mexican immigrants or poor blacks on welfare and say "those people are the reason why my lot in life is so shitty" when the truth of the matter is that what illegal immigrants don't pay in taxes and the amount of money spent on welfare combined don't even add up to a fraction of the amount of tax breaks wealthy individuals and corporations have gotten over the last 30 years. Yet we hear all the time that if we move back toward proportional taxation these wealthy individuals won't be able to hire workers while simultaneously their taxes have been steadily decreased beginning in the early 197os yet that never stops businesses from reincorporating overseas and laying off tens of thousands of American workers at a shot. Because, simply put, when it comes to greed it is never enough.

[Kristy]

Incorrect. I'm 100% right. The president (if he's doing his job) has the last say on whether or not we go to war.

You're 100% dumbass

The "last say" always befalls to Congress. Now, politely go fuck yourself with your Ted Nugent Pez dispenser.

[Nitro Express]

And the whole conservative vs. liberal thing still works, time and time again, to distract voters from the larger issues of power, wealth and influence. Much the same way as issues of race continue to divide the lower classes, when taken as a whole the lower classes collectively have much more in common with each other than they do with the top 10% of earners in this country.

It's easy for a poor white guy to look at illegal Mexican immigrants or poor blacks on welfare and say "those people are the reason why my lot in life is so shitty" when the truth of the matter is that what illegal immigrants don't pay in taxes and the amount of money spent on welfare combined don't even add up to a fraction of the amount of tax breaks wealthy individuals and corporations have gotten over the last 30 years. Yet we hear all the time that if we move back toward proportional taxation these wealthy individuals won't be able to hire workers while simultaneously their taxes have been steadily decreased beginning in the early 197os yet that never stops businesses from reincorporating overseas and laying off tens of thousands of American workers at a shot. Because, simply put, when it comes to greed it is never enough.

There has always been greedy people and some go to the extent of breaking the law. The problem I see is we aren't enforcing our banking regulations or laws. I don't care if you are a Bernie supporter or a Trump supporter. That's the common ground. Everyone agrees we are being ripped off by a few greedy people who never see the inside of a jail cell. In fact we got one running for president currently under FBI criminal investigation. Nobody is enforcing the law on these people and they smugly flip us the finger. Now crying that life is unfair or pointing the finger doesn't fix shit. If the people continue to be divided the situation will just get worse until something snaps and I don't think anyone wants to go there.

[Nitro Express]

You're 100% dumbass

The "last say" always befalls to Congress. Now, politely go fuck yourself with your Ted Nugent Pez dispenser.

Well it's supposed to work that way but we never declare war, we just send troops and equipment. The neo-cons loved to call it Operation this and that. Obama just does it. Gives it no name.

[Kristy]

Don't care. 'faggerslob is a dumbass.


Bottom line.

[cadaverdog]

The "last say" always befalls to Congress. Now, politely go fuck yourself with your Ted Nugent Pez dispenser.

Wrong. If congress approves a declaration of war the president can veto it. If congress doesn't override that veto the president would indeed have the last say.

[cadaverdog]

Bottom line.

Bottom line? You're a cunt. End of discussion.

[Kristy]

Wrong. If congress approves a declaration of war the president can veto it. If congress doesn't override that veto the president would indeed have the last say.

You can't even Google a correct answer.

[Satan]

Wrong. If congress approves a declaration of war the president can veto it. If congress doesn't override that veto the president would indeed have the last say.

You DO realize that your mortal Congress has not declared war since December 1941, right?

None of these pathetic, illegal - not a goddamned thing to do with protecting the US - military actions from Korea on to the PNAC wars were ever "approved" or declared, according to the terms of your mortal Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 11)

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

So without a declaration, what would a President veto? Rather, these illegal BCE/CIA/MIC/PNAC wars have all been started by the Executive branches, and the only time it goes to Congress is when they need money for it. Which naturally is always there, despite the teabaggers claims that there's no money for anything else.

[cadaverdog]

You can't even Google a correct answer.

Blow me.

[cadaverdog]

You DO realize that your mortal Congress has not declared war since December 1941, right?

None of these pathetic, illegal - not a goddamned thing to do with protecting the US - military actions from Korea on to the PNAC wars were ever "approved" or declared, according to the terms of your mortal Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 11)

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

So without a declaration, what would a President veto? Rather, these illegal BCE/CIA/MIC/PNAC wars have all been started by the Executive branches, and the only time it goes to Congress is when they need money for it. Which naturally is always there, despite the teabaggers claims that there's no money for anything else.

Not sure who you're arguing with here. I said the POTUS had the last say on whether we go to war and it looks like you're agreeing. As far as Korea goes the UN more or less declared war on North Korea and we went along with it. Not sure what the constitution says about that. According to you we've gone to war without the approval of congress but never without the approval of the POTUS himself. On top of that the POTUS is commander and cheif of the military. Even if congress overrode a presidential veto on a war declaration could they actually force the president to take action?

[Seshmeister]

No one declares war any more.

The only reason to in the US is that it gives a bunch of extra powers to the president like grabbing private resources and so on. With the insane levels of military spending these days that's never going to be neccessary.

The reason for a vote for military action, especially since Iraq is to share the blame if it goes shitty again. That's what happened in the UK over Syria, constitutionally no vote was required but they thought they better get one. When it was voted down(just), a bunch of people in the US Congress said 'hey how come we don't get a vote on this when they do?' and that ended up killing both countries direct involvement in what would have been another stupid war.

[Kristy]

slave SESH did you know Eleanor Friedberger is Jewish like your homoerotic bf Roth?



Bet you did not know that.

[Satan]

With a name like Friedberger, it's an easy assumption, but actually not true.......

Friedberger was born in Oak Park, Illinois, and grew up singing with her grandmother Olga Sarantos and family in a Greek Orthodox church

[Kristy]

Naw, she's a Jew.