Want to see what's wrong with America? Read the partisan responses in the fat lady singing post below
The US is a country of angry left wing and right wing hacks, spoonfed their talking points from their biased MSM media sources, fiddling and feuding as the country burns.
Keep as it. As Jon Stewart said one day to the partisan screamers on CNN's Crossfire:
"It's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. But I wanted to come here today and say... Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
I wish HP'ers at least would be open minded (and aware) enough to see through this BS.
HP 2006 Endorsement: The Other Guy (vote against all incumbents).
34 comments:
the hardcore right and left only go to media that reinforces their small view of the world, so they'll probably be erasing their housing panic bookmark soon
good riddance
At the very least, we need a viable third (if not fourth or fifth) political party. The existing two parties seem content to just divide up the "market" without any innovation in their "products" (e.g, policy changes, creative solutions, etc.).
Just like the Japanese import automobiles injected shock into the US domestic market and resulted in safer, more efficient, and cheaper cars available in the market, we can't expect the existing players to get up "reformed" one morning and deliver what the voters have been wanting all along. If they were at least willing, it would have happened already.
If Nader didn't support outright property confiscation, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
buzz kill said...
The democrats are good, the republicans suck donkey appendages.
I think they both suck donkey appendages, for different reasons.
We need a third party for all the people who are sick of both donkeys and elephants.
Blah, blah, blah, all talk all the time. Since 98% of incumbents get reelected, who is really to blame for this mess?
I'm done with the two party system. I have more choice in buying a toothpaste in a supermarket than in picking a candidate in so-called general and presidential election.
Blah, blah, blah, all talk all the time. Since 98% of incumbents get reelected, who is really to blame for this mess?
Everybody, including YOU.
Anybody who thinks that voting does any good at all is crazier than a hoot owl. This is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy. Doesn't matter who you send, as soon as they get there they are instantly corrupted. Watching the bloated, maggot filled government rot in the hot sun is good entertainment. Cook up some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.
"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.
The issue that annoys me the most in this debate is that some trolls actually believe in supply side economics (“there is a free lunch” economics). Supply side economics is fundamentally flawed:
1) It assumes the creation of wealth (through money printing) can be done BEFORE it may actually take place.
2) It gives undue power to the issuer of currency, and those primarily connected to it, as opposed to those creating the economic output. Eventually, power shifts from production to finance / political connection. It can likely lead to fascism
3) Its outcome is ALWAYS inflation in one way or the other.
4) It favors misallocations within an economy as those linked with money printing are not necessarily able to allocate the capital in sectors in which it would be beneficial. Market signals get distorted. It mostly ends in speculative ventures as opposed to the accumulation in productive activities.
5) On the long run, it undermines true economic growth as it creates a society addicted to debt (current consumption at the expense of future consumption) instead of one committed to savings (deferred consumption).
It either takes a simple (abracadabra, something for nothing), deluded (the govt. and central banks know what they are doing) or a corrupted (my business depends on it so I don’t care where the money comes from) mind to abide to the precepts of supply side economics.
Registered indepedent years ago. . .
Used to be a Reagan Republican, then Bush I and II came along. . .still like Arnold here in Calif, but also vote for Demo Feinstein. . .just vote for who seems the most sane at the time. . .time to end partisan politics! NO - doesn't mean voting for stupid third party candidates like Nader. Often there are pretty good local politicians, and I don't care which party they belong to.
The only choice we have the the less evil of two people.
i've never voted in my life and have never even registered to vote. I care very much, but my voting behavior won't change until i have someone to vote for or there is a chance my vote would make a difference.
voting is meaningless when the candidates are chosen for you.
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said.
We lost a city last August. Where was Gingrich then?
People who say you shouldn't vote the party, but the individual, are MORONS and UNPRINCIPLED!
That's like saying you're religious, but going to mosque, synagogue or church, based on how you feel about the speaker instead of adopting a belief system (e.g. sheeple).
Each political party has its own "core" belief system and set of principles as well that you either support or oppose.
I'll bet that those who say vote for "the person" are superficially religious, if at all, because it takes someone who's unprincipled to place a person above their belief system, if they have one at all.
I'll bet that those who say vote for "the person" are superficially religious, if at all, because it takes someone who's unprincipled to place a person above their belief system, if they have one at all.
Hmmmm....non-religious=unprincipled
Discuss...
anonymous 3:00:15, please rewrite that comment in a way that I can tell what the heck you are trying to say.
"That's like saying you're religious, but going to mosque, synagogue or church, based on how you feel about the speaker instead of adopting a belief system (e.g. sheeple)."
You do realize that many so-called religious individuals are looking for cultural support and belonging than in seeking the hidden truths of the divine which would then make the true devotee either a mystic or a fanatic, depending upon your terms and usage. With that in mind, the tone/message of the speakers could be just as important as the underlying tenets of the religion.
Now, to take that analogy with politicians, in some ways, handpicking candidates, who peridically breaks with the ranks of their party demagogues or partisanships, could be a useful person to have in Congress so that bi-partisanship occurs more often than just during a national security crisis.
The national security crisis is the government you nitwit.
"The only choice we have the the less evil of two people."
The question is: why are there only TWO people? Is this a law or something set in stone?
The truth is: It doesn't have to be that way. Personally, I'd feel better to see three, four, five people to choose the less evil from. It might actually raise the bar a bit.
There's really only two ideologies. Competition or cooperation. Sharing versus selfish. Greed versus the common good.
I don't think I have to tell you which is which.
Only fools believe there is a magical third way. Too bad those fools are so afraid of liberalism they will lump both ideologies together as if they are the same. I guess that's easier than giving up the mistaken belief that a hyper-competitive, greed-soaked culture will produce much of anything good.
If you suffered through reading the posts above then you might get the impression that Americas are fundamentally lost. I agree. There is no magical 1st 2nd or 3rd way, there is only one way, America's heritage; Liberty. I think that it’s time for our citizens to re-learn what it means to be “American”.
“Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.”
Visit the Libertarian Party
"There's really only two ideologies. Competition or cooperation. Sharing versus selfish. Greed versus the common good."
what about:
ambivalence or "I don't give a rats A**"
or
agnostic or "I can't tell the difference"
?
Libertarians combine the worst of both ideologies. The selfishness of the right with the hedonism of the left.
Pretty much libertarians just don't want to contribute to the common good and want to be able to get high and go to strip clubs.
Fellows, this is America, at least the US part of it, and third parties, historically, have either been a joke or been absorbed by one of the major ones.
The closest to a true third party was the Populist movement in the 1890s which supported William Jennings Bryant and I believe that that group was basically absorbed by the Democratic party. The whole Ross Perot thing was little more than a cult of personality which of course didn't mount to anything once he left politics.
Unfortunately, despite Nader's good work in consumer protection laws and his reasonable intentions, he's really just another blowhard like the LaRouches out there with no chance of going anywhere. There's no American green movement, no one really cares about the environment when their jobs are at stake.
The only thing you can do is to live frugal, take care of your health, and watch as your nation turn into a third world society.
"There's really only two ideologies. Competition or cooperation. Sharing versus selfish. Greed versus the common good."
Not true. There is a third way based on common, shared values. This leads to motivation and enlightened effort as opposed to the drone-like, forced labor favored in many capitalist, socialist and Marxist economic systems. The theory and principles of this approach were developed by Waino Suojanen, and many here might do well to take a look at his works.
The U.S. was once a country with broadly-held beliefs and shared values. We were able to accomplish many great things in the 20th Century because the people tended to view their efforts as part of a larger scheme.
Now that we are more "sophisticated" and oh-so worldly, many in this country, particularly academics and media types, see fragmentation as a positive achievement Rigid religious or moral beliefs are for rubes in the "red" states. We are seeing the results now in our floundering institutions.
"We were able to accomplish many great things in the 20th Century because the people tended to view their efforts as part of a larger scheme."
Here's what you're missing in your 20th century analysis...
Two world wars of which, not a little American city was lost.
Before that infamous summer of 1914, the US was a third world nation with
collora and diphtheria outbreaks as the norm along with child labour, lots of bank panics, and whole families living in studio apartments in NYC.
Then after the war, the US was the only western nation which hadn't lost an entire generation and became the center for all of the world's investment mania leading to the roaring '20s. Little by little, the standards of living improved during this generation and then came the depression.
Then, after WWII, again with an intact generation, the US became the world power and the leader in the anti-Soviet, worldwide red scare. That's a real head start over the rest of the planet.
Now, without a cold war, we have no scientific vision other than crusty profs writing grants and cheesy corporations trying to float IPOs along with bubblenomics and the idea that global capital benefits someone other than bankers and their corporate cronyies in charge of companies. Put that together with politicians who only respond to BP-Amoco-Chevron and related industries and what do we have?
Anonymous said...
" Blah, blah, blah, all talk all the time. Since 98% of incumbents get reelected, who is really to blame for this mess?
Everybody, including YOU. "
Politicians are like lawyers, everyone hates them in general but they love their own personal lawyer and local politician.
"Now, without a cold war, we have no scientific vision other than crusty profs writing grants and cheesy corporations trying to float IPOs along with bubblenomics and the idea that global capital benefits someone other than bankers and their corporate cronyies in charge of companies."
Wow, and I though I was cynical! If you'll pull your head out of that conspiracy hole and read some history, you might be surprised to learn that plenty of innovation occured well before WWII and the cold war. Ever hear of Claude Shannon or Robert Goddard? Do the names Edison or Dumont ring a bell?
To be sure the two big wars changed America, but to cite them as the only source of innovation in the 20th Century is just flat wrong.
"Politicians are like lawyers, everyone hates them in general but they love their own personal lawyer and local politician."
Sorry, but I like lawyers and they make the system go around. Your complaint is against those who abuse the system and then hide behind curtains of policies.
"People who say you shouldn't vote the party, but the individual, are MORONS and UNPRINCIPLED!"
How much principle does it take to vote along the party lines. Real principle is when you stand for what you beleive regardless of whom the message comes from. Real principle is going aginst the system.
OT religion is a tool used by the elite to control the masses. the truly enlightened understand that there is only one God and that it is man who in his lack of understanding trys to divide and monopolize GOD.
In general man wants to lay claim to something of which he has no knowledge.
Yep. Personally, I field all questions about the afterlife by saying
"Well, I won't know till I die".
Voting based on party affiliation is just asinine. That's what lead us into this mess in the first place. American citizens should be conservative or liberal depending on the issue. Most Republicans in America are not in 100% agreement with what Bush's jughead administration is doing. If they di, we'd see an Dubbya approval rating above 30%.
Post a Comment