Former President Gore tells Keith Olbermann the system is BROKEN

[FORD]

[Bob_R]

Al Gore invented the Internet, right? (joking)

[FORD]

No, but he did invent Current TV.

[Nitro Express]

The system is fine. It worked pretty well for 200 plus years. The problem is we have corrupted the original system by giving unelected government agencies too much power, making the executive branch too powerful, taking states rights away, and giving the power to issue money to a private bank that answers to nobody. What we need to do is go back to the original constitutional system as it is written. I would be very wary of someone coming in and saying we have to change everything. Some of the world's worst dictators and some of the most horrific carnage occurs because a solution to an economic problem sounded good and people let their guard down and let it march in. What we need to do is fire everyone we hired to run the government for us. They were shitty managers. It's like any business, try and find good employees. We seem to have a shortage of good employees across the board and it seems to be a broad social problem and it reflects in the politics as well. Basically what we are seeing in Washington DC is a reflection of our society in general and we better clean ourselves up or yes, we fail. The system doesn't fail but the people in charge of it have failed.

Gore is right on it takes too much money to run for higher office. If you run as an independent you will spend most your campaign money just getting on the ballots so the Democrat and Republican parties basically have a monopoly on getting on the ballot if you are running for the US Presidency.

As far as unemployment goes one HUGE problem right now is nobody can make a five year fiscal plan because nobody knows what their expenses are going to be. Nobody knows how much their utilities are going to cost or how much insurance is going to cost five years from now. Both of those can spike to huge percentages. So the safe thing to do now is hunker down and not hire. If the government can bring some stability to these costs businesses would start hiring. It's the current chaos in the government that is hurting business and that means no new employees hired. At the moment it seems like the government is anti-business and frankly, there are other countries you can go right now that you can do business in where it's so much easier than the US. The US right now is one of the highest taxed and regulated countries on the planet unless of course you are a big corporation then you are exempt. To be honest. I think the big corporations have bought the government and are using the regulating and tax authority to run the rest of us out of business. That's what it seems like now.

[sadaist]

January 2010 - "This year my primary focus is jobs" - Barack Obama

January 2011 - "This year my primary focus is jobs" - Barack Obama

January 2012 - "This year my primary focus is jobs" - Barack Obama

January 2013 - "I need a job" - Barack Obama

[FORD]

The best outcome of a "throw the bums out"/anti-incumbency scenario would be to elect huge majorities of REAL Democrats in both houses of Congress, and (if any Republican had to be in the White House at all) Ron Paul as President.

That way, the wars would end, and the Federal Reserve would be abolished. Possibly marijuana would be legalized, and maybe even marriage equality.

Unfortunately, none of the rest of the last 30 years of damage would be undone (unless it was passed by a veto proof margin) but at least no FURTHER damage would be created.

[sadaist]

the wars would end,

Federal Reserve would be abolished.

marijuana would be legalized

Don't need to be a Democrat to want those things. I'm Republican and support all 3 of those wholeheartedly.

I differ on the marriage equality though. People get married for 2 reasons. They love each other and it serves some religious/ceremonial/spiritual need to prove love & dedication to one another. Secondly they get married for the benefits. Insurance rates, tax breaks, beneficiaries, property rights, etc.

First I don't think the govt. should be involved in any religious or spiritual ceremony in saying who can & can not participate. It's up to whomever is performing the ceremony. Second, I don't think there should be special benefits & rights given to married people by the government. So in either case, the government needs to just get out of the marriage game all together. The govt is way up in far too much of everyones personal business right now. They really need to pull back a lot of it & just let people be free to make their own decisions. I feel the same about the govt mandating what foods we can eat.

[jhale667]

Almost, but...

Don't need to be a Democrat to want those things. I'm Republican and support all 3 of those wholeheartedly.

I differ on the marriage equality though. People get married for 2 reasons. They love each other and it serves some religious/ceremonial/spiritual need to prove love & dedication to one another. Secondly they get married for the benefits. Insurance rates, tax breaks, beneficiaries, property rights, etc.

First I don't think the govt. should be involved in any religious or spiritual ceremony in saying who can & can not participate. It's up to whomever is performing the ceremony. Second, I don't think there should be special benefits & rights given to married people by the government. So in either case, the government needs to just get out of the marriage game all together. The govt is way up in far too much of everyones personal business right now. They really need to pull back a lot of it & just let people be free to make their own decisions. I feel the same about the govt mandating what foods we can eat.

I'd almost agree with you, but the problem is some states are still so backward they won't even recognize civil unions due to them forgetting the whole church/state separation thing and letting their stupid religious ideology creep into their decision making process...if you don't object to it on religious grounds - and you CAN'T if we're talking about a state recognizing it - there is no valid argument against it. While I'm not sure I agree with fully equating it with minorities civil rights issues, I DO hear a lot of the same empty arguments presented against same-sex marriage that were used (that I've heard personally in the past and given people free dental work for afterward) against interracial dating/marriage years ago. It's hollow bullshit based on bigotry now just like it was then, just in a different context - and seriously, what the fuck do I care if two dudes or two girls marry, or have a civil union? They should be afforded the same rights as opposite sex couples. And the argument that it somehow damages same-sex marriages is just pathetically idiotic.

I've said it before, but with a 52% divorce rate among hetro couples, I'd LOVE to see the stats for gay marriages a few years down the road. I think if they fared better statistically, certain religious zealots heads would explode...which would be reeeeally funny!


I DO believe if there's any parallel to the civil rights movement, it's that it's clearly a case where the government HAS to again step in and say "No, STUPID - YOU HAVE TO TREAT ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY" - no ifs, ands, or buts. Again, you can't argue against it based on your own religious superstitions (that not everyone shares), or your own personal distaste for it - both are irrelevant.