THIS!! I have been saying this.... both parties are SO pro corporate (just look at the bailout bill, that was not a democratic or a republican bill, it was a corporate bill -- and they loved it)

/There is an exception and that is some of the true conservative republicans in the house and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..

//didnt RTFA

Minnesota Twins

It used to be that when corporations gave politicians bribes, people went to jail. Now the system is all nice and legal, and corporations simply bribe whichever party is in power.

I liked it better back when we regularly sent Congresscritters to jail for long stretches.

And THAT'S why we have an invincible economy.

If you want to see the indisputable benefits of putting the welfare of corporations ahead of all other considerations, just have yourself a look at our bulletproof banking and auto industries. They are our unique and precious snowflakes and must be cherished and sheltered, the recipients of decades of loving, nurturing protection.

The more we can legislate and feed their specialness, the better able to compete they will be.

Won't SOMEONE please think of the bankers?

This is why I laugh whenever I see people calling the Democrats "left wing".

The US has a right wing, and a further right wing.

Declaration of Independence 2008
The Declaration of The People of the Fifty United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for The People to dissolve the bipartisan political bands that have disconnected and betrayed them, and to assume the separate and independent station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of The People requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of The People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. But when a long train of bipartisan abuses and manipulations exists, it is the right of The People, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the People; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their current System of Government. The history of the present bipartisan Governmental System is a history of repeated partisan political manipulations to the disadvantage and expense of The People, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute yet subtle Tyranny by bipartisan political Elites against the common, decent citizens of our respected Union.

Accordingly, in response to the resounding cries of The People, and in order to form a more perfect, post-partisan Union, we do hereby declare our Independence from the existing bipartisan political System and from the unseen Forces that sustain it, and do therefore call forth by national consensus for the Declaration of an Independent Candidate for the Office of President of the United States. Such Candidate must necessarily be encumbered with the indispensable prerequisites of having resided, toiled, earned a livelihood, and suffered alongside ordinary Citizens for no less than 35 consecutive years. Furthermore, such Candidate must understand from direct personal experience the real needs and concerns of The People, evidenced by a genuine love and care for the citizenry that is without pretense and without concern for personal political gain or partisan agenda. Moreover, we do hereby solicit every good and noble Citizen of our endangered Union to advance the cause of true Freedom by promoting the proliferation and legitimacy of competent Independent candidates for every local, state, and federal office, and by demanding a new generation of Independent, post-partisan leaders that will ensure that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Therefore, in the most solemn respect for the mortgaged blood of patriots past who procured with their very lives our cherished liberties, and in honor of the Providential Opportunity and historic Moment that currently envelopes us, we formally and cordially invite all concerned Citizens of the Fifty United States of America and its Territories to inaugurate the most profound and refreshing political Transformation since the historic days of our Founding Fathers. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.

Done in Sovereign Convention by Consent of The People. In accordance with the spirit and desires of the Founding Fathers, and with excerpts from their original Declaration of Independence dated July 4, 1776, and from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863, in Witness I hereto subscribe my name,

Jonathan Allen, Convention Chairman
We The People


/He's running for president.
//I know. Nobody else has heard of him, either.
///Less than a snowballs chance in hell.
////Would make a decent write-in, though.
//Here he is. (now with two party poppin' goodness)

Glasgowsfinest: This is why I laugh whenever I see people calling the Democrats "left wing".

The US has a right wing, and a further right wing.

"The most liberal person in the Senate." Kinda like being the tallest midget or the cutest harlequin baby.

Minnesota Twins: THIS!! I have been saying this.... both parties are SO pro corporate (just look at the bailout bill, that was not a democratic or a republican bill, it was a corporate bill -- and they loved it)

/There is an exception and that is some of the true conservative republicans in the house and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..

//didnt RTFA

Paul Wellstone is rolling in his grave.

Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

The distinction was lost as soon as corporate America realized they could simply buy the government.

Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

Chomsky (whoops)

Eh. He makes some valid points. Multinationals have changed the way politics work in this country - and in every other capitalist country.

Yes, yes...we all know that both parties are puppets to the corporations. Corporations are a necessary evil in a society such as ours. Obama has been somewhat different than the others, as of late. The vast majority of Obama's campaign donations have been small donations from ordinary people like me, so Obama is less beholden to corporations than any other Presidential candidate in the past 30 years. So here's to hoping that Obama can finally bring some meaningful reforms to the system.

sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

I don't think I have enough time today to cover all his problems.

Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

So in this case, you checked and his thesis was 100% accurate?

Glasgowsfinest: The US has a right wing, and a further right wing.

Nailed it.

Weaver95: sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

I don't think I have enough time today to cover all his problems.

Well name a few.

The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

If this is true, why isn't this fact the number one Democratic talking point?

notmtwain: If this is true, why isn't this fact the number one Democratic talking point?

Because Democrats are failures when it comes to talking points.

Also, I agree with the headline quote and Glasgowsfinest.

sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

Don't be naive. Have you ever even studied transformational grammar?

Obvious indeed.

It's been a one party system since 1868 ^ when Zachary Taylor, the last president who was not tied to the Democratic-Republican party^ left office. The Republican party is known as Lincoln's party because he was the first Republican president, however, IMO both the Republican and Democratic parties can be called Jefferson's party since he was the founder of the originating party, which split into factions in 1824.

I'll go along with that. Yeah..Factions. George warned us about that. Let's keep doing business but lose the Factions.

TheOther: sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

Don't be naive. Have you ever even studied transformational grammar?

I have read his social critiques. This book (new window) continues to ring true today.

However, I was under the impression that his linguistic work was very prominent and important.

This is why guys like Feingold and Kucinich just need to leave the democrats behind.

sloppy shoes: TheOther: sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

Don't be naive. Have you ever even studied transformational grammar?

I have read his social critiques. This book (new window) continues to ring true today.

However, I was under the impression that his linguistic work was very prominent and important.

And, in this case, completely irrelevant. It's like having a urologist fix your computer. I'm sure he's brilliant in his field, but he's likely to take the CPU chip out and see how it tastes.

Good old Noam has *never* written one single word about what this country has done right. Never. Not in any of his books. If you're going to be a 'critic' you have to find the good as well as the bad. Noam only finds 'the bad'. Plus his habit of sucking off dictators is most annoying.

Weaver95: sloppy shoes: TheOther: sloppy shoes: Weaver95: Noam Chomsky. If he said the sky was blue, I'd open the window and check.

What's wrong with Chompsky?

Don't be naive. Have you ever even studied transformational grammar?

I have read his social critiques. This book (new window) continues to ring true today.

However, I was under the impression that his linguistic work was very prominent and important.

And, in this case, completely irrelevant. It's like having a urologist fix your computer. I'm sure he's brilliant in his field, but he's likely to take the CPU chip out and see how it tastes.

Good old Noam has *never* written one single word about what this country has done right. Never. Not in any of his books. If you're going to be a 'critic' you have to find the good as well as the bad. Noam only finds 'the bad'. Plus his habit of sucking off dictators is most annoying.

I think he is a good philosopher. You don't need to be anything but well read and intelligent to be a philosopher.

As for being negative, you wouldn't be much of a social critic if you weren't negative or critical of what you were analyzing. However, I haven't found him to be anti-patriotic or whatever you are insinuating. Much of his criticism is rooted in the betterment of society- though he may not always be correct. I found that he states positive, just not in much detail. Nobody wants to read a 300 page book on how great something is.

And are you criticizing Manufacturing Content? The book is very well compiled and sourced.

sloppy shoes: What's wrong with Chomsky?

Politically, he's a fairly high-grade crackpot; not quite weapons-grade crackpot, though. His worldview sometimes gives him some interesting insights mixed in with all the crazy, and sometimes gives for an alternative perspective on things.

Worth reading, but keeping a skeptical mindset is vital. Somewhat like Karl Marx, that way.

Minnesota Twins: THIS!! I have been saying this.... both parties are SO pro corporate (just look at the bailout bill, that was not a democratic or a republican bill, it was a corporate bill -- and they loved it)

/There is an exception and that is some of the true conservative republicans in the house and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..

//didnt RTFA

A big heaping helping of THAT, please.

/Adjusts tinfoil

Obvious tag aptly used.

/Cue Bill Hicks pic that I'm too lazy to find and shamefully hotlink...

Weaver95: It's like having a urologist fix your computer. I'm sure he's brilliant in his field, but he's likely to take the CPU chip out and see how it tastes.

Actually, if someone's method of diagnosing is to see how things taste, I wouldn't want him as a urologist either.

rcain: Obvious indeed.

It's been a one party system since 1868 ^ when Zachary Taylor, the last president who was not tied to the Democratic-Republican party^ left office. The Republican party is known as Lincoln's party because he was the first Republican president, however, IMO both the Republican and Democratic parties can be called Jefferson's party since he was the founder of the originating party, which split into factions in 1824.

THIS, but remember where you are -- Fark, a bastion of stupid.

Weaver95: Good old Noam has *never* written one single word about what this country has done right. Never. Not in any of his books. If you're going to be a 'critic' you have to find the good as well as the bad. Noam only finds 'the bad'. Plus his habit of sucking off dictators is most annoying.

I didn't realize that you had to cover both sides of an issue to have legitimate issues. I don't care that Chomsky doesn't have many nice things to say about the US - there's more than enough bad things to illuminate to occupy all of a person's time. Anyway, just like any other opinion fountain, if you can recognize a source's biases, than you can (hopefully) see past them and extract from their perspective the nuggets of real information contained within.

Lando Lincoln: So here's to hoping that Obama can finally bring some meaningful reforms to the system.

He's inheriting the greatest Executive power in the history of the Republic, so I'll believe in "reform" when I see him push legislation that strips the White House of that power.

I've heard nothing from the Obama campaign regarding this vital issue, so it's safe to assume that Obama will not only retain, but use, Bush's dictatorial powers to his own ends.

MonkeyAngst: Weaver95: It's like having a urologist fix your computer. I'm sure he's brilliant in his field, but he's likely to take the CPU chip out and see how it tastes.

Actually, if someone's method of diagnosing is to see how things taste, I wouldn't want him as a urologist either.

What if she were a hot urologist? ;-)

But the point that Weaver95 is doubly silly because a Urologist could also have the capability to fix a computer. He completely ignores the idea that anybody could have meta knowledge (essential for a social critic) or capable of specializing (or at least highly competent) in multiple things.

I have this horrible feeling that no matter which party gets voted in, they're going to try to start something with Iran. And I don't mean have shiatload of falafel burgers ordered at 1 am as a prank ; that's Ralph Nader's plan.

Minnesota Twins: and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..



I don't think he would appreciate that.

This, but, as I am a pro-business left-winger myself, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm a business hippie. I understand the concept of supply and demand.

/and spend my money on socially responsible corporations.

Rational discourse of the corporate-bought forced-consent State system? Check

People dismissing it because they liken Chompsky to a mental patient? Check

Ideas for a better system? ...

allsave: Minnesota Twins: and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..



I don't think he would appreciate that.

He always carries a pocket constitution. How many other congressman do that?

abb3w: sloppy shoes: What's wrong with Chomsky?

Politically, he's a fairly high-grade crackpot; not quite weapons-grade crackpot, though. His worldview sometimes gives him some interesting insights mixed in with all the crazy, and sometimes gives for an alternative perspective on things.

Worth reading, but keeping a skeptical mindset is vital. Somewhat like Karl Marx, that way.

Alright, I'll bite. Why is he a crackpot? Everybody seems to be saying that yet I have never ever thought that.

Not that it's directly related, but how 'bout that Libertarian party?

I was thinking last night, doesn't it's inability to get candidates on the ballot sort of invalidate the entire party's free market views? It's basically a small buisiness running against two huge corporate multi-nationals. Even though it's offering a better product (arguably), at a lower price, and the larger options have a bad record of fulfilling promises to the consumer, said consumers still go for the brand they know. The small business can't attract positive news becuase the large corporations band together like a monopoly to block out the competition.

Attracting new customers hasn't worked becuase the larger corporations have more money for advertising. Word of mouth is negated by low consumer-confidence in their ability to get elected. Viral campaigns (Ron Paul) have no support structure built up for them and there's no coherent business plan, so when some success is had they split off to support goals closer to their own (constitution party).

Basically all they can do now is try to break even on their investment in a gamed system. Whereas if the free market was perfect monopolies wouldn't be able to overpower superior products.

Of course this sort of thing doesn't reflect on the philosophies of other third parties who find it equally difficult to get on the ballot.. Except possibly the constitution party which believes God should throw them a bone. Just something that occured to me.

Occam's Chainsaw: Glasgowsfinest: This is why I laugh whenever I see people calling the Democrats "left wing".

The US has a right wing, and a further right wing.

"The most liberal person in the Senate." Kinda like being the tallest midget or the cutest harlequin baby.

Russell Feingold is the most liberal person in the Senate by a long stretch.

Subby conveniently ignores the words immediately following the quoted language:

There are differences between [the parties]. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above.

Let's get something clear here people:

It's C-H-O-M-S-K-Y

And everyone who hasn't read one of his books or is unfamiliar with libertarian socialist politics should just STFU now and skip the "OMFG Chompsky is communist like Stailn and Marx! Move to France u commie!" drivel, OK?

headline: "Business party."

Really, this is just too coarse of an explanation for US politics.

Embargo of Cuba? erm.. Business!

Roe vs. Wade? erm.. Business!

Support for Israel? erm.. Business!

Gun issues? erm.. Business!

Seekret Muslim? erm.. Business!

Church and State? erm.. Business!

Gay rights? erm.. Business!
-----

People sometimes have this Manichean duality on paradigms settled around Ideology or Materialist perspectives. Ideology is important. Feel free to enter the non-stop argument of which is more important. Its a mix.

Minnesota Twins: THIS!! I have been saying this.... both parties are SO pro corporate (just look at the bailout bill, that was not a democratic or a republican bill, it was a corporate bill -- and they loved it)

/There is an exception and that is some of the true conservative republicans in the house and some true little guy democrats out there -- very very few and far between..

//didnt RTFA

Did you know that most Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq War?

Most Congressional Democrats voted against the 2008 FISA amendments?

There are differences between the parties. Even Chomsky acknowledges that the Democrats, over the course of time, have proven better for the middle class than Republicans. Those who claim there are "no differences between the parties" are fools who lack critical thinking skills.

Falcc: but how 'bout that Libertarian party?

one of the problems here is the apparent ideological collapse of "market fundamentalism," or neo-liberal economic policies (which is doubly apropos to a discussion of ideology or materialistic perspectives, as its an ideology of economics)

Falcc: Not that it's directly related, but how 'bout that Libertarian party?

I was thinking last night, doesn't it's inability to get candidates on the ballot sort of invalidate the entire party's free market views? It's basically a small buisiness running against two huge corporate multi-nationals. Even though it's offering a better product (arguably), at a lower price, and the larger options have a bad record of fulfilling promises to the consumer, said consumers still go for the brand they know. The small business can't attract positive news becuase the large corporations band together like a monopoly to block out the competition.

Attracting new customers hasn't worked becuase the larger corporations have more money for advertising. Word of mouth is negated by low consumer-confidence in their ability to get elected. Viral campaigns (Ron Paul) have no support structure built up for them and there's no coherent business plan, so when some success is had they split off to support goals closer to their own (constitution party).

Basically all they can do now is try to break even on their investment in a gamed system. Whereas if the free market was perfect monopolies wouldn't be able to overpower superior products.

Of course this sort of thing doesn't reflect on the philosophies of other third parties who find it equally difficult to get on the ballot.. Except possibly the constitution party which believes God should throw them a bone. Just something that occured to me.

The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that libertarians offer a superior product. Not only is libertarianism bad policy, but voters don't want it. That's why they keep voting against it. No other reason.