Change

There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Wow.... come up with that all by yerself?

Here, Sam- I think you'll get a kick outta this:

Americans Following Obama:

In-acurate. Not enough minorities.

What exactly do you think the republicans would be doing differently right now? They started the same, stimulus, bailout shit that Obama is following up on.

Personally I'd rather jump in the hole, I might land on a body and only break an ankle or something. If I were following the republicans it would essentially be marching into an oven. No real way out of that one. Socialism > Fascism anyday.

I'd like to see a big hole for Obama's followers and another for Bush followers. After they all jump in the rest of us might be able to salvage something.

Until the outdated electoral college is abolished. The only change will be no change at all.

Nitro... I don't get you.

95% of the time, you live up to my LOW expectations... but every once in a while you make a keen observation. Could you try and be a little more consistent- in EITHER direction?

Seriously, though... I completely agree on that point- though I wouldn't limit it to the electoral college. There are dozens of mechanisms in our electoral process that have evolved over the years to maintain our stagnant 2-party system (federal election commission, state ballot rules... just to name a couple)... and I don't see any of this changing. I think we're stuck with the choice of fascism vs. socialism indefinitely- probably for the rest of our lives.

So I reckon I'll be a cheerleader for socialism for a while- 'til it becomes tiresome. Then I'll drift back towards anarchist for a while. Then maybe I'll cheer on the fascists when the pendulum swings back in 8 years. That HAS pretty much been my own political history. I reckon that puts me well within mainstream Amerika.

We cannot rely on the Federal Government to ever change this. The only thing that can is if the general public says enough is enough. Interesting idea. Next Presidential election, nobody vote. Let's see how they justify the outcome then.

Sloth comes to mind:

Sloth can also concern wasting due to lack of use or allowing entropy, expanding into almost any person, place, thing, skills, or intangible ideal that would require maintenance, refinement and/or support to continue to exist.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

We cannot rely on the Federal Government to ever change this. The only thing that can is if the general public says enough is enough. Interesting idea. Next Presidential election, nobody vote. Let's see how they justify the outcome then.

Why not all just vote libertarian and really screw em up? So far I've voted libertarian in every presidential election. I may get accused of throwing away my votes, but at least I can feel proud not to have supported any of the crap that's been in office.

Silence would speak louder. The election of the current puppet only proves that although Americans want change, talk is just talk and bullshit still rules. As long as we allow it, we'll continue to be mushrooms.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

We cannot rely on the Federal Government to ever change this. The only thing that can is if the general public says enough is enough. Interesting idea. Next Presidential election, nobody vote. Let's see how they justify the outcome then.

I guess it's an entertaining fantasy and all... but it'll never happen.

And as far as the Libertarians go- I reckon I agree with them more than any other party- but I'll never vote for the likes of Bob Bar. I'm sorely disappointed in the Libertarians for nominating him... and lost a fair amount of respect for the party when they did so.

The Libertarians have absorbed lots of Tinfoil Hat Republicans over the years, and I don't like the direction that they're taking the Tinfoil Hat party in.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Silence would speak louder. The election of the current puppet only proves that although Americans want change, talk is just talk and bullshit still rules. As long as we allow it, we'll continue to be mushrooms.

If no one votes they'll have no reason to care who we want and their favorite puppet will be declared it. If however they saw millions of third party votes they'd really know we want change.

Bighead.... Bob Barr sure wasn't my pick for the libertarian candidate, but when the other choices were (John killin arabs for fun and profit McCain) or (Barack I could give the USSR socialist lessons Obama) I saw no other choice.

This may be a off topic post
WTH is going on with GM and the damn CEO.......and WHY in the HELL has the Whitehouse asked him to step down..????
somethings fishy.........................I think I do smell a stinch around the GM dude!!!!!

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead.... Bob Barr sure wasn't my pick for the libertarian candidate, but when the other choices were (John killin arabs for fun and profit McCain) or (Barack I could give the USSR socialist lessons Obama) I saw no other choice.

I'm not criticizing you for voting Libertarian- there were no GOOD options in this election (and I'd be hard-pressed to name a modern election where there WERE any good options IMO). Just saying that Barr didn't represent any real alternative. He's just another fascist like McCain. I happened to prefer the socialist.

jessks75 wrote:

This may be a off topic post
WTH is going on with GM and the damn CEO.......and WHY in the HELL has the Whitehouse asked him to step down..????
somethings fishy.........................I think I do smell a stinch around the GM dude!!!!!

Not off topic, Jess.

The government broke the economy, the government threw money at companies to fix the economy, this did not fix the economy, and heads must roll. Those rolling will not be from the government.

It's all about change.

I think the GM thing is all about PR... which the Obama team is pretty talented at. Just like their (apparently feigned) outrage at the AIG bonuses- it's all about publik perception.

Nitro, if you have any substantive understanding of what's going on in the banking industry right now, then it's a mighty big stretch to say "the government broke the economy" (Although that IS pretty much in-line with the talk-radio talking-points). Sure, the gov't played a part (though probably not the part that you'd describe)- but damn near the entire banking industry was tripping over itself to get in on the mortgage bubble.

And whaddya' know... the bubble popped.

I personally don't care one way or another what happens to that CEO- none of my concern. Rail all you want about Obama- just don't pretend that the Republicans offer ANY real alternative. 'Cause Dubya's people did EXACTLY the same thing several months back- requiring the head of AIG to step down before that particular 'bailout'.

Barr wasn't great, but still better than McCain. He is pro-gun, pro-personal rights, and he has apologized for many things in his past and is now working to correct them. He's the one who got sunset clauses put into the Patriot Act and now regrets being for that Act at all. He's since worked to reverse it. And he did voice himself very well during the Waco hearings. He countered the BS attempts to smooth it over by the democrats and even tried to get Congress to reopen the investigations, but top republicans were against it.

So yeah he's not been completely perfect, voting far right on some past issues, But in both past and present he has done a few things right, and has attempted to undo some of what he didn't do right.

Barr's positions have been 99.999% hard-line Republican for his entire congressional career. He's a hard-core drug-warrior, voted for the patriot act, voted to ban the practice of wicca in the military, he's opposed gay rights and medical marijuana, and was an early supporter of our current stupid war.

But once he lost his house seat (certainly not BEFORE)- he had a sudden change of heart on several of his fascist positions. Looks like political opportunism to me- I really don't know how you or any honest Libertarian could possibly take the guy seriously.

As for the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents- I agree with him and lots of Republicans in theory. But now that I've seen those same Freedom-Loving Republicans back every single jack-booted government-thug intrusion that Bush could dream up over the past 8 years, I KNOW that there was no principle behind their outrage. Ruby Ridge and Waco are a rallying cry for Tinfoil Hat Republicans not because of any real concern over abstract notions like civil liberties- but because those people that the government thugs killed were middle-amerikan white-males just like them. THAT's what they're pissed about.

'Cause I can name any number of government actions that are as bad or worse... but those same people don't give a rat's ass because they don't 'identify' with the victims.

Bighead. If Dubya's govment hadn't opened the door, there would have been nothing to trip through, but we know it runs deeper than that, don't we?

Very true, Nitro. We're in agreement so far. There's LOTS of blame to go around.

Depending on which door you're referring to, doors were open under Carter, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Congress made several real contributions to the problem on more than one occasion, under control of both parties. The Fed contributed to the problem. So did the banking industry- on a massive scale (including but not limited to outright fraud on that massive scale).

I'm not trying to lay all or even most of the blame on Dubya. My point is that the Talk-Radio line claiming that government in general and democrats in particular are to blame is just a lie. No one entity is to blame- or even MOSTLY to blame. There were plenty of mistakes all-around... and some blatant criminality throughout the banking industry.

Yeah Bighead, since leaving the republicons he's not only apologized for his part in the federal ban on medical weed and the Patriot Act, he's worked to reverse them. And since leaving the repubs he's become affiliated with organizations promoting freedoms privacy and limited government. And he's always been a big supporter of the 2nd, unlike The Bush family and the current asswipe who'd like to tax ammo out of reach and require even owners of 22 rifles to be licensed and fingerprinted.

Yeah, Bighead, your right. Much better to have a socialist in office that hasn't apologized for jack shit that someone who's trying to right some of his mistakes.

At least we know what Obama is. He's a socialist. And while I'm not particularly fond of socialists... they beat the hell outta fascists (like Barr).

IF (and it's a big if) Barr means what he says... then that's great. If he means what he says, then I wish him luck. But he has a long and well-established record of working against MOST (not all) of what Libertarians supposedly stand for. I just have a hard time believing that one of the most authoritarian assholes in Washington suddenly discarded everything he apparently believed in... seems mighty convenient that it was only AFTER losing his House seat that this change of heart came about.

Bighead wrote:

At least we know what Obama is. He's a socialist.

Funny that wasn't the platform he ran on.

I also have a hard time believing someone who lied in his campaign and wants to take away my guns is better. This is an interesting read on Barr.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

At least we know what Obama is. He's a socialist.

Funny that wasn't the platform he ran on.

Sure it is. Everybody knows that Democrats are socialists. It's just that "socialism" is a political dirty-word... so they don't use it. But they ain't foolin' anybody.

Unfortunately, the fact that Republicans are essentially fascists isn't exactly common knowledge (seeings how most people think that fascist=nazi... when reality ain't quite so simple).

Bob Barr, on the other hand, is a fascist running under the Libertarian label. Ratzilla, I read your link. And it told me nothing that I wasn't aware of. Bob Barr is an ardent supporter of Libertarian-style freedoms ONLY when corporate, white male, christian, and flag-waver interests are at stake. In other words, he's a tinfoil-hat Republican. Not a Libertarian. I could understand people not being able to see the difference 10 years ago... but we've just been through an 8 year object lesson on just how little notions like individual rights, the constitution, and small government actually MEAN to Republicans.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

At least we know what Obama is. He's a socialist.

Funny that wasn't the platform he ran on.

Sure it is. Everybody knows that Democrats are socialists. It's just that "socialism" is a political dirty-word... so they don't use it. But they ain't foolin' anybody.

Unfortunately, the fact that Republicans are essentially fascists isn't exactly common knowledge (seeings how most people think that fascist=nazi... when reality ain't quite so simple).

Ratzilla wrote:

I also have a hard time believing someone who lied in his campaign and wants to take away my guns is better. This is an interesting read on Barr.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

I won't defend Obama's stance on guns. I don't like it any better than you do... I'll just say that it's become less of a priority for me these days now that I've seen just how extensive the Republicans own anti-rights/pro-goverment agenda really is. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn't kill anybody- just pissed lots of people off and made for some great political theatre. Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for killing well over 4000 Americans and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of brown people. Just a personal preference, but I'll take a gun-grabber over a war-monger any day.

Name me a single mainstream politician who hasn't lied over and over and over. I can't. I doubt you can either.

Hell, name me ANY national politician who hasn't lied multiple times (I guarantee I can find some accusations- whether you agree with them or not).

Bob Barr, on the other hand, is a fascist running under the Libertarian label. Ratzilla, I read your link. And it told me nothing that I wasn't aware of. Bob Barr is an ardent supporter of Libertarian-style freedoms ONLY when corporate, white male, christian, and flag-waver interests are at stake. In other words, he's a tinfoil-hat Republican. Not a Libertarian. I could understand people not being able to see the difference 10 years ago... but we've just been through an 8 year object lesson on just how little notions like individual rights, the constitution, and small government actually MEAN to Republicans when those abstract notions go against their pet interests and prejudices.

As I've stated and you have ignored, Barr isn't my ideal by a long ways either. But he's still closer to libertarian than Obama and McCain. If you recall I was pushing for Ron Paul all along but he wasn't on my ballot.

You want change, here it is...

1. Limit campaign contributions to 80 million per party, period. No loopholes for outside contributions and an election oversite comitees to check the spending.

2. Eliminate the electoral college. Popular vote only.

3. Debates, debates, debates. Have the candidates so busy debating one another that they don't have time to do anything else and the media doesn't have time to cover anything else.

4. Do not allow outside parties to represent candidates through advertising. If it doesn't say, "this candidate approves this message" it can't run.

5. Limit presidential terms to 3 years instead of 4 and allow 3 terms instead of 2. In giving more parties rise we shouldn't have to deal with any one of them for too long if we don't want to, conversely it will give us a change to course correct instead of the 2 term, 8 year shoe in we currently like to stick ourselves with.

I want to see the vote spread out between, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists and everything else. In time we would truly represent the America that we all believe is free, fluid and industrious.

Well, since we're having a constitutional convention here...

I propose that all elections, but ESPECIALLY presidential elections, be subject to a runoff vote if no candidate wins a clear majority (say, 51%). This would eliminate the 'wasting your vote' dynamic when voting for a 3rd party candidate- AND would prevent a 3rd party candidate from swinging an election, resulting in one guy being elected after a clear majority voted against him (but split between two other candidates). The 1992 pres. election is a good example. Were it not for Perot's candidacy, we probably would've had a second term of Bush I. But instead we got Clinton... who was voted against by a clear majority.

Of course, the politicians in power- 99.9999% of whom are beholden to our 2-party system- will never go for this. Gotta keep that 2-party gravy-train rollin'.

While we're at it, voter registration needs addressed. With the invention of the internet, (thank you Al Gore), we should be able to fix it.

Could you be a little more specific, Nitro? Not sure exactly what you have in mind.

But I'm gonna go ahead and second your proposal, pending a few more details. And I'll also suggest that in this day and age- there's no technological reason why voting couldn't be done on-line.

Developing a system which is immune to hacking by folks with agendas and constitutional, will be quite difficult. I'll have to consult my crystals.

Tamperproof electronic implants come to mind, but...

Bighead wrote:

Everybody knows that Democrats are socialists. It's just that "socialism" is a political dirty-word... so they don't use it. But they ain't foolin' anybody.

Yeah. They go by "progressive."

Funny that Progressive Insurance is a George Soros company.

Bighead wrote:

Unfortunately, the fact that Republicans are essentially fascists isn't exactly common knowledge (seeings how most people think that fascist=nazi... when reality ain't quite so simple).

Especially when the official name of Hitler's party was the National Socialist Party.

Do you base all your political arguments on word-games?

You know as well as I do that Republicans and Nazis both promoted the same authoritarian ideals: Nationanlism (we call it "patriotism"), unlimited police powers (we call it crime-control), aggressive militarism (we call it a "war-on-terror"), social control (we call it 'family values'), and strong alliances between government and industry (we all know that Republicans actively promote corporate interests. And no, this is not necessarily always a bad thing in and of itself. And yes, the Democrats are often complicit).

But at least the Republicans don't have a hard-on for gun-control like MOST fascist governments have, historically. I reckon their current strategery of recruiting the gun-owners into their fascist party is MUCH more effective.

Bighead wrote:

Unfortunately, the fact that Republicans are essentially fascists isn't exactly common knowledge (seeings how most people think that fascist=nazi... when reality ain't quite so simple).

Actually it is that simple. I challenge each of you to take a long hard look at this documentary and find for me where it presents a biased argument based on anything other than factual evidence.

http://www.endofamericamovie.com/

Enjoy.

Bighead, you should know there's a HUGE difference between Republicans and Nazis. The Nazis would never have wanted Israeli poop on their noses.

I never called Republicans Nazis. I called them fascists. There's a difference.

Fascist is a more general term than Nazi. Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were Nazis. (I.e. F150's are trucks, but not all trucks are f150's.)

More accurate?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80483192/

I don't recall Republicans Bar-B-Cueing people..

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I don't recall Republicans Bar-B-Cueing people..

However, George Soros collaborated with the cooks.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I don't recall Republicans Bar-B-Cueing people..

Methinks being escorted to an oven a faster end than having chemicals and weapons tested on me without my knowledge. You really should do some homework on what your beloved conservatives have rained down on you, put in your water and injected you with throughout our history. Granted a Democrat has, a time or two, consented to similar testing, but it is essentially the war monging fascists who have done most of the deeds.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I don't recall Republicans Bar-B-Cueing people..

Never said they did- though they have promoted, supported, and directly ordered the killing of MILLIONS of people worldwide- both directly and indirectly. If you're dull enough that you can't come up with numerous examples of this, then I'm clearly wasting my time talking to you.

And yes, EP, Democrats have often been complicit... but not NEARLY as enthusiastic most of the time.

It's worth pointing out that there is no clear and universally accepted definition of fascism- look up the wikipedia article if you want a brief outline of just how muddy the issue is. But a list of eight or ten common traits of fascist regimes throughout the past century (and spread out over three or four continents) is fairly easy to come up with. And Republicans share most of these traits.

I don't want to turn this long, rambling, and fairly entertaining "change" thread into just another "YOU PEOPLE ARE FASCISTS AND YOU SUCK" rant... 'cause like most things in life- reality just ain't that simple (though simpletons are damn good at oversimplifying- as Nitro and EP will demonstrate in their next post). So even though I'm no fan of fascists (including but not limited to Republicans)- It's worth noting that socialists and their nasty cousins, communists, have killed VASTLY more people in sheer numbers than any other political movement. The Nazis are infamous in our western culture- largely as a byproduct of WWII, I think. But the soviets (who also called themselves "socialists"... but I assume you wouldn't claim that communits=nazi, now would you EP?) slaughtered tens of millions of their own. Some of their comrades in east Asia have been just as nasty (albeit on a smaller scale).

So to sum it up... all I'm saying is that Republicans are fascists. Don't read too much into it.

Almost forgot i am a Neocon. Thanks for reminding me.

Bighead wrote:

I never called Republicans Nazis. I called them fascists. There's a difference.

Bighead wrote:

You know as well as I do that Republicans and Nazis both promoted the same authoritarian ideals.

Then why say Nazis? Just figured since you like to pick at what I post that I'd return the favor. Besides, I saw a joke opportunity.

Besides simplistic arguments fuel your best rants. Without them your entertainment value drops. Gotta keep it lively..

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I never called Republicans Nazis. I called them fascists. There's a difference.

Bighead wrote:

You know as well as I do that Republicans and Nazis both promoted the same authoritarian ideals.

Then why say Nazis? Just figured since you like to pick at what I post that I'd return the favor. Besides, I saw a joke opportunity.

Yeah, I reckon I was less than clear. I compared Republicans to Nazis- the most infamous fascist regime. But I called them fascists.

See, it's real easy in our culture to equate fascism with naziism- it's done all the time. But I think it's important to make the distinction; otherwise our own blatantly fascist tendencies are minimized. 'Cause we ain't near as nasty as the Nazis were. Yet.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Besides simplistic arguments fuel your best rants. Without them your entertainment value drops. Gotta keep it lively..

Hmmm... you're right. That IS one reliable way to piss me off.

But I'm glad you're entertained. So am I. It's a win/win.