Two Party System = EPIC FAIL!!!

[bobbyjimmy]

Occupy has big liberal bucks and lots of liberals like pelosi and obama pumping them up and they have local governments letting them squat without permits exc.

Apparently you're living on Earth 2, because over here on Earth 1, OWS has no money of its own to speak of and depends mostly on the kindness of strangers who support what they're doing. If some "liberal" institution has helped them out here or there, it's definitely not some gigantic amount. Unlike other movements, OWS isn't really an entity- just a banner that anyone can use to identify with a common cause. There's no leaders, no official ruling body, etc. I don't recall Pelosi or Obama pumping them up- indeed, most OWS people are wondering where the hell Obama has been during all this, since they're doing what he talked about doing but never did. He did once make some kind of comment (once it became obvious that this wasn't some fringe movement of crazies but an actual worldwide movement with many working, middle class folks who vote) saying he understood their frustrations or something, but that's about it- he's never gone down to Wall Street to talk to them, or in any way taken actions that supported the things they've been protesting.

Oh, and the biggest problem OWS has had has been local police NOT letting them squat, or often even assemble peacefully, all over the country. That's why the NYC version of OWS (the ones that started it all) have no actual home right now, because Mayor Bloomberg is only interested in making the city a playground for rich people no one else can afford.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

...some how this all got lost in translation.

It always does.
Welcome to the Real World.

 

[Gipper]

It's amazing how many different bizarre points of view exist on this thread, never mind our country. Let's clarify some points-

first, Romney isn't a big free market capitalist, but he is nuts- and more importantly, he's not so much the issue. It's his party, the Republicans, that, when in power will continue to dismantle any regulations they can find so that the people that own them, i.e. large corporations, can continue to destroy the American economy in their upside-down-pyramid-scheme version of capitalism. That is, all the money flows one direction, creating a very healthy and unsustainable economy.

second, you're right that it doesn't really matter who wins, because both parties will basically continue business-as-usual. It's just amazing that your version of "business-as-usual" is some kind of socialist welfare state. The actual facts show the opposite- a rampant growing abuse of an economic structure that wasn't perfect but worked okay. You said "corruption in our financial sector" and you're correct- but the reason is due to the deregulation that has allowed financial institutions to turn a stable, controlled environment into a Las Vegas casino where they get to gamble with your retirement fund. Not exactly a "welfare state" unless you want to include all the corporate welfare they've been given.

The problem most conservative folks seem to have is how blind they are to reality- they're so stuck on their antiquated notions of what Republicans and Democrats stand for, that they fail to see how far off those ideas are from today's landscape. You hear "government regulation" and you think the communists are coming to take over. In actuality, the whole point of government, from the beginning, is to make sure things run smoothly, and that no one is screwing up the system to the detriment of all. They do this with laws that limit the ability of any one to go too far and end up with a monopoly on things. Republicans AND Democrats both agreed on this for a long time, that monopolies were a bad, bad idea. But we live in an age of monopolies, with bigger fish constantly devouring each other until there's only 1 or 2 left. It doesn't matter what party you identify with, that's a stupid, stupid state of affairs and results in nothing good for the general population- yet that's exactly what so many blindsided Americans keep fighting for, the right of giant corporations to get bigger and bigger without anyone stopping them, all because someone fooled them into thinking that the opposite equals communism and socialism's return.

I have nothing against a true libertarian philosophy of freedom for all- but we are so far away from that now that simply removing laws is going to do more harm than good. Corporations control our tv, radio, and now (more and more) the internet. You can have a "free" state in theory but if the reality is that the little people have no way to grow because all the power is already in the hands of a tiny few, that's not exactly a free state. I agree that the 2 party system is incredibly stupid and destructive, which is why I'm not voting for either of those clowns, but for the only person who's actions and words reflect actual integrity. I wouldn't trust Obama or Romney to do my food shopping, never mind run the country, and I'm amazed at how many people are willing to do so when the evidence is quite clear that they're not interested in your well being at all.

Your post is confusing and contradictory.

You appear to agree with much of my post, but call it bizarre. You agree with me that it does not matter who wins because both parties will continue "business-as-usual," yet you claim the Rs will deregulate EVERYTHING. This is a blatant contradiction and most incorrect.

You mistakenly blame a LACK of regulations on the financial sector as the reason for the financial crisis. Really??? This is a Democrat talking point and would appear to fit the dupe description I mentioned in my post. No sector of our economy is more regulated than the financial sector and this has been true for decades. You seem to think MORE regulations are the solution when it is apparent that the existing ones have long been ignored thanks to government collusion. Ever heard of the MASSIVE Dodd Frank law? It is nothing if not a complete disaster, which has only resulted in the big bad banks getting BIGGER!!! The monopolies you speak of exist NOW and are a consequence of government action and inaction. Yet you naively think MORE government regulations are needed.

Government and the corporations including the financial sector have, are, and will continue to collude for their benefit, while damaging everyone else. Government IS part of the problem and the main culprit. Asking government to fix the problem with MORE regulations, is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house.

I do agree with you about not trusting either Obama or Romney, but then I do not trust ANY politician or ANY government. You on the other hand, trust government.

 

[Dr.Who]

Was reading yesterday...if we were to have powerful third parties, or fourth...then neither Obama nor Romney would get 270 electoral college votes as required to become president. then the states would pick the next Pres based on a simple one vote per state rule. More state are republican so Romney would most likely be Pres. On the other hand the next VP would be chosen by the senate and would probably be Biden.

Regardless we do not generally want our Pres and VP to be chosen this way.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I don't trust government. I accept that we have one, and if we do, then it should be working for the people, because that's the only reason it exists in the first place. If you want to remove all government, all police protection, all everything and live in a truly free state of anarchy, I'm actually game for that. But if that's not what you're advocating for, then we do have a government, and given that we do, I want one that works. I want laws that encourage a stable economy, one built on logic and not speculation, one that understands you want to diversify and keep wealth spread out, not consolidate and keep wealth concentrated.

If you don't think Reagan's campaign of deregulation in the 80's happened, if you don't remember all the tax code loopholes created in the 80's and the subsequent S&L scandal, or the deregulation of energy companies, or the deregulation of airlines, or the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act that allowed Wall Street to do what it did over the past decade, then you've been reading some odd history books. I fully accept that both Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame in this idiotic catering to corporate America- but this isn't about asking the government to do anything but reinstate a series of laws that had worked incredibly well since the 1930's depression and, once removed, have allowed greedy people to do what they do best with no consequences. You're playing into the hands of the very people who are screwing you over by arguing that they should be allowed to continue screwing you over.

That's why I agree with your ultimate aims, it's just that you've flip-flopped the story that led to it- which I find to be the case often with conservatives- I completely understand their ultimate frustration but they've been believing this alternate-reality version of history for so long, convinced that the liberal socialists are trying to turn this country red, that they don't notice that their very leaders are the ones stirring them up in order to make a crapload of money off them.

 

[K.Cantu]

@GenSenca I would like to apologize for assuming who I thought you we're but after reading some of your threads. I was wrong and there for true to my form I Apologize. Now with that being said. I still feel the way I do about Gary Johnson however I will do some homework and look more into why I am Libertarian because it's obvious you want me to better myself so I can bring a better livelier debate.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

@GenSenca I would like to apologize for assuming who I thought you we're but after reading some of your threads. I was wrong and there for true to my form I Apologize. Now with that being said. I still feel the way I do about Gary Johnson however I will do some homework and look more into why I am Libertarian because it's obvious you want me to better myself so I can bring a better livelier debate.

Impressive display of decorum--and good breeding.

 

[K.Cantu]

Impressive display of decorum--and good breeding.

I owed him that. I mean He wants me to better myself and there's nothing wrong with that. Even though I think he's a closet conservative(There I go assuming again) It's his right to be who he wants and believe what he likes. We all want a better society and we can agree that the country needs a fresh start. I just think Romney and Obama don't offer that but at the same time I know Gary Johnson doesn't have a chance in Heck! of winning. The libertarian belief goes hand in hand with what I believe in as well. Smaller Government, No bail-outs, Government out of the bedrooms and at the alter etc etc. This is why I support Gary Johnson because his belief's reflect mine. There's more to it but I don't want to bore you with the details JT Besides your a very smart guy and I'm sure you know all of these things already. LIVE FREE!!!

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I owed him that. I mean He wants me to better myself and there's nothing wrong with that. Even though I think he's a closet conservative(There I go assuming again) It's his right to be who he wants and believe what he likes. We all want a better society and we can agree that the country needs a fresh start. I just think Romney and Obama don't offer that but at the same time I know Gary Johnson doesn't have a chance in Heck! of winning. The libertarian belief goes hand in hand with what I believe in as well. Smaller Government, No bail-outs, Government out of the bedrooms and at the alter etc etc. This is why I support Gary Johnson because his belief's reflect mine. There's more to it but I don't want to bore you with the details JT Besides your a very smart guy and I'm sure you know all of these things already. LIVE FREE!!!

Live Free--or Die.
As they say on the New Hampshire license plates and all over that place.
I hope people like you--far younger than me, I would guess--can make a Libertarian Party that would be viable.
My generation failed and essentially gave us what we have today--to my eternal shame and regret.
Remember this--the absolute and ONLY way to make government less powerful, intrusive and arrogant--is to deny it MONEY.
All other priorities and efforts will fail miserably.
Deny the monster it's food--and it will die.

 

[Pandora]

Apparently you're living on Earth 2, because over here on Earth 1, OWS has no money of its own to speak of and depends mostly on the kindness of strangers who support what they're doing. If some "liberal" institution has helped them out here or there, it's definitely not some gigantic amount. Unlike other movements, OWS isn't really an entity- just a banner that anyone can use to identify with a common cause. There's no leaders, no official ruling body, etc. I don't recall Pelosi or Obama pumping them up- indeed, most OWS people are wondering where the hell Obama has been during all this, since they're doing what he talked about doing but never did. He did once make some kind of comment (once it became obvious that this wasn't some fringe movement of crazies but an actual worldwide movement with many working, middle class folks who vote) saying he understood their frustrations or something, but that's about it- he's never gone down to Wall Street to talk to them, or in any way taken actions that supported the things they've been protesting.

Oh, and the biggest problem OWS has had has been local police NOT letting them squat, or often even assemble peacefully, all over the country. That's why the NYC version of OWS (the ones that started it all) have no actual home right now, because Mayor Bloomberg is only interested in making the city a playground for rich people no one else can afford.

I just quickly read your post since I just got off work. I looked up some links for you but I’m tired, it was a 14 hour day so I didn’t want to spend my whole night looking this stuff up, but you can if you are really interested in it.

Your occupy NY has 500k, ask them to set you up in an apartment

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/they_want_lice_of_the_occu_pie_9xKCxcI4aectFYkafMb8UJ New York occupy group has 500 thousands in the bank from donations





http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-supports-occupy-wall-street-movement/story?id=14696893 Nancy Pelosi supports occupy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2796191/posts George Soros funds occupy

http://www.dollarversity.com/occupy-wall-street-or-occupy-hypocrisy/ more occupy money, they are like Michael Moore, a corporation



As for the mean old police who won’t even let them squat and tear up the PUBLIC areas that the people pay for…. They should get permits just like anyone to do their protesting. The permit fees help re seed the grass exc.

 

[dogtowner]

So lets see... in places with a multitude of parties it requires that a number of them band together to have any actual power. So what is so different than what we have here ? Both major parties have their own blocs that have to be able to come together to have any real power.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

well, let's see. The link you sent about Soros and Occupy came from some unknown site with no references or sources. So I googled around, and all the articles say the same thing- they merely suggest or ask if Soros is giving them money, and then admit that there's really no evidence for that other than very vague, tenuous links from one thing to another. These are all a year old, and even now, I'm not seeing anything that has been able to confirm any kind of Soros-backed transaction. On the contrary, Reuters, who originally ran the story, sort of backpedaled after receiving criticism from fellow journalists for not doing its homework:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/reuters-occupy-wall-street-george-soros_n_1009617.html

Your New York Post link doesn't go anywhere, though, come on, try something a little less sensationalistic that the New York Post! They rarely bother with trivialities like facts.

I've visited Occupy protests as well as Zucotti park and if someone's getting rich off them it's not anyone I could see or ever heard of. Remember, the whole point of OWS is that there's no one really in charge- there's no "governing body" or anything- sounds like a Libertarian's dream! And transparency has always been a big thing with them- so everything is in the open, everyone can step in and take charge, speak up, etc. Of course, anywhere there are humans there is the possibility of corruption, but you need actual evidence before making such accusations... let's compare that to the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party ties, which are actually clear and well-established.

Pelosi, Obama, and plenty of other Democrats can act like they relate to the common folks and their anger against Wall Street all they want- and it doesn't really matter, because Pelosi and the Democrats aren't actually doing anything that supports OWS and their intentions. In this regard, I actually respect the Republicans more, because what you see is what you get- they are very clear in the kind of America they want to create. The Democrats speak sweetly to the middle class, and then turn right around and act like Republicans. So, no, OWS did not receive any ACTUAL support from anyone in the White House, or anything close to that. It's about as grass-roots as you can get.

I didn't really understand that last post about them being a corporation. The blogger's point was, I guess, that since they used a bank that had done what every other bank had done as well, that this makes them hypocrites, though, as someone in the comments pointed out rather well, the fact is Amalgamated is a much, much more honorable bank than Bank of America or any of those other institutions. And if they are going to verbally support someone who is basically "the enemy" then that's a good thing, not a hypocritical thing- it's not the concept of banks that OWS is against, it's how they have behaved. Amalgamated gives out a lot more loans to local, small-time businesses and things that the larger banks basically shut out. Yeah, ideally, there would be some kind of non-profit co-op bank funded 100% by individuals who's sole interest is to help each other out rather than make a profit- and I'm sure if that bank existed, OWS would be using them. But short of keeping all the donation money under a mattress in the park, this seems like the next best thing.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

There is always the Italian Model...

 

[Gipper]

I don't trust government. I accept that we have one, and if we do, then it should be working for the people, because that's the only reason it exists in the first place. If you want to remove all government, all police protection, all everything and live in a truly free state of anarchy, I'm actually game for that. But if that's not what you're advocating for, then we do have a government, and given that we do, I want one that works. I want laws that encourage a stable economy, one built on logic and not speculation, one that understands you want to diversify and keep wealth spread out, not consolidate and keep wealth concentrated.

If you don't think Reagan's campaign of deregulation in the 80's happened, if you don't remember all the tax code loopholes created in the 80's and the subsequent S&L scandal, or the deregulation of energy companies, or the deregulation of airlines, or the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act that allowed Wall Street to do what it did over the past decade, then you've been reading some odd history books. I fully accept that both Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame in this idiotic catering to corporate America- but this isn't about asking the government to do anything but reinstate a series of laws that had worked incredibly well since the 1930's depression and, once removed, have allowed greedy people to do what they do best with no consequences. You're playing into the hands of the very people who are screwing you over by arguing that they should be allowed to continue screwing you over.

That's why I agree with your ultimate aims, it's just that you've flip-flopped the story that led to it- which I find to be the case often with conservatives- I completely understand their ultimate frustration but they've been believing this alternate-reality version of history for so long, convinced that the liberal socialists are trying to turn this country red, that they don't notice that their very leaders are the ones stirring them up in order to make a crapload of money off them.

1. We all want a government that works, but you are naive to think it possible. Government by its very nature, does not work and a government as large, corrupt, and coercive as the one we have, NEVER works.
2. Reagan did deregulate some things and most HELPED the economy. To think that more regulations will HELP the economy, is delusional. Regulations are necessary, but not at this level. Plus you fail to recognize that regulators KNEW what Wall Street and the Banks were up to in the 1990s and 2000s and did NOTHING. In fact, they supported their bad behavior. So, your beloved regulations are MEANINGLESS and INEFFECTIVE. I agree repealing Glass-Steagall was wrong, but it was not entirely done by Rs....BJ Billlybob signed it into law. You are stuck in Ds good Rs bad mode....when both stink and both are equally responsible and working in tandem to keep the status quo in place and increase their power.
3. I have not flip flopped at all. I have always considered government evil, but necessary. You think government can effectively regulate the economy. It can't and it won't.

You fail to understand that socialism is promoted by both parties. If you think the Rs are Conservatives promoting free market capitalism, you are badly misinformed. Socialism rules the day and has for a long time.

If we had the Rule of Law and Free Market Capitalism, all this would not be happening.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Apparently you're not actually reading my posts. Let's go over this step by step:

1. We all want a government that works, but you are naive to think it possible. Government by its very nature, does not work and a government as large, corrupt, and coercive as the one we have, NEVER works.

Yeah, like I just said, I don't trust the government and don't have much faith in it doing anything. BUT since it actually is here to stay, unless you're advocating for a revolution where we overthrow it and live in anarchy, the most logical thing is to get one that works about as well as it can be. Hence, the rest of my post.

2. Reagan did deregulate some things and most HELPED the economy.

In the short term, yes- we saw big profits and a false sense of economic boom. But like all speculative empires built on air, the bubble burst because there was nothing behind it- just people making money out of thin air. The de-regulations did not help, not in the long run, as you can see today.

To think that more regulations will HELP the economy, is delusional. Regulations are necessary, but not at this level.

I don't want MORE regulations, I want the regulations that we had back before Reagan et al started dismantling them. Read your history and you'll see that the same thing happened in the 20's with President Wilson- which culminated in a Stock Market crash you might have heard of that ushered in a huge depression. Many of the regulations, including Glass-Steagall, were created then to make sure this kind of thing didn't happen again. And it didn't, for many decades, until Reagan and every president that's come after him (and congress) started trashing all those safeguards. So now here we are. Let's get that clear- I don't want MORE regulations, I want the ones that worked really well for decades.

Plus you fail to recognize that regulators KNEW what Wall Street and the Banks were up to in the 1990s and 2000s and did NOTHING. In fact, they supported their bad behavior. So, your beloved regulations are MEANINGLESS and INEFFECTIVE.

I don't fail to realize that, I agree with that. You're mixing "regulators" with "regulations". Our government has done nothing to stop Wall Street- they've only helped them by dismantling the laws that were there. You're not making much sense- my beloved regulations are not ineffective, they're actually not there. They've been removed. You seem to think I trust the people in congress- I don't. That's why I want to see some laws reinstated that prevented people from screwing us over.

I agree repealing Glass-Steagall was wrong, but it was not entirely done by Rs....BJ Billlybob signed it into law. You are stuck in Ds good Rs bad mode....when both stink and both are equally responsible and working in tandem to keep the status quo in place and increase their power.
3. I have not flip flopped at all. I have always considered government evil, but necessary. You think government can effectively regulate the economy. It can't and it won't.

This is a bizarre comment since I just made it very clear that I think both parties are doing the same thing. I've been saying this whole time that I don't like either party, and that I'm not voting for either. So why you want to keep repeating a tired mantra is beyond me. I'm not saying you flipped flopped, I'm saying your understanding of history and politics is upside-down. You have the correct response to what's going on (righteous indignation) but your understanding of how we got here is 180 degrees from the facts. I don't know what you've been reading, but you need to do a little more research. What you're saying just doesn't make sense and isn't supported by any evidence.

You fail to understand that socialism is promoted by both parties. If you think the Rs are Conservatives promoting free market capitalism, you are badly misinformed. Socialism rules the day and has for a long time.

That is the most bizarre statement I've ever heard- these past 20 years have seen nothing but free market capitalism take over not just the U.S. but the entire world. Countries all over the world have sold off their basic utilities like water and energy to corporations that now get to dictate things that affect the basic needs of people. That's not socialism, that's the opposite of socialism. The only place socialism has flourished is in South America, and that's directly as a result of American companies going down there and buying everything up- from the rainforest land so they can graze cattle to make our burgers to installing factories of cheap labor. It hasn't helped the countries any, and as a result has given them a bad taste of what "capitalism" means, and they've responded by embracing the opposite, socialism. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it's a fact. Free market capitalism is what gave us the 2008 crisis- if you can't grasp that obvious fact then I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Wall Street is now freer to speculate and invest however it wants, and with that rampant freedom has come these crazy abuses of money and power that eventually crash and pull us all down with it. We didn't have Wall Marts and Amazon dot Com 's 30 years ago- now we do, and the result is I can't go into your average town and buy most books I'd like to buy because all the small bookstores have closed and the only remaining Barnes and Noble carries a few books and a whole lotta other stuff to avoid bankruptcy. That's not the result of socialism, that's the result of free market capitalism. If we were moving towards socialism, I would have a healthy, functioning library rather than one that's on the verge of shutting down because funding keeps getting cut. This myth of the "slippery slope" that we're all falling on is so preposterous, yet so effective, that a good percentage of the country actually buys into it despite reality pointing in the other direction.

You seem like your heart is in the right place. If you really want to help your country, read up on the facts and realize that socialism is the last thing you should be afraid of right now. There are no socialists in our government, no matter what your pundits are preaching.