I ask why

[Bill Johns]

Here we have a proven domestic enemy of the US. And he has not been arrested, why not? He is subverting the constitution and calling for civil disobediance, that alone is a terrorist and we have laws to deal with people like that.

Speaking at the opening plenary session of the Clinton Global
Initiative Annual Meeting in New York, Gore said: "If you're a young
person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is
being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage
where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of
new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."
How come they consider it important that a woman has a choice in killing her unborn child. Yet we are not to have a choice in our own activities if it some how fails to comply with the new religion of the environment and global warming/ climate change. AGENDA.???????????????

[NinerSevenTango]

Both parties subvert the constitution. They agree that the constitution only gets in the way of their great plans (of course, that's what it is there for). The only arguments between the two parties are on which parts of the constitution need to be destroyed. The see-saw battle between the parties results in our freedoms being lost and government power increasing, first being attacked from the one side, then the other. Neither party repeals the damage done by the other. The result is a ratcheting effect, where the gains by each are locked in. The progress is always in the same direction - towards tyranny and away from liberty and government restraint.

Voters are presented with an untenable choice - to choose between false alternatives. Will you vote for loss of your economic freedom and your property rights this time, or will you vote for loss of privacy and loss of restraint on government's use of physical violence?

The press keeps blinders on themselves and their audience. The opponents attack each other with glee, the press works to raise the contest to a fever pitch. Everyone has a jolly old time, being free of anyone spoiling all the fun by pointing out the obvious:

The overriding issue isn't which rights you should lose today, it's freedom vs slavery.

Both parties are poisonous to freedom and contemptuous of the constitution.

I choose not to choose between a socialist who leans towards fascism and a fascist who leans towards socialism.

--97T--

[Bill Johns]

I agree, why is it allowed?
It is a bi party that means the same. I was not talking about a party, but the person that gave the statement. The leading one of the enviro lies.

[handlewanker]

Because Bill Johns, you can't put Donkeys in charge of Donkeys and expect to get a fair go.

Remember ya'all came from the dregs and huddled masses from the slums of Europe etc, so how can you expect to get a silk purse out of a sows ear....LOL, even your man at the top is of dubious quality, most of them one timers.
Ian.

[TomB]

The detailed questions being asked: “Why isn’t Gore arrested for speaking freely?”, “Which aspect of the constitution will the parties subvert next?”, (both questions were paraphrased) have on the surface short answers but imply a much deeper frustration and question. That question, “Why doesn’t national leadership provide intelligent options?” is a very interesting one. It’s a question that has occupied my thinking on many a late evening. You can’t arrest Gore for speaking out, that is what free speech guarantees, but you can and should ask why there is not an opposing argument that is given as much press coverage. You can’t just say politicians are subverting the constitution without being specific about what law and what constitutional article is involved. But you can and should ask why do the politicians not provide the public with (1) intelligent well argued choices, and (2) intelligent and well qualified candidates.

I think there are three or four interacting reasons that have lead to the current state of affairs. (1) As TV and mass marketing entered the picture in the late 40’s and early 50’s a lot of effort was spent learning how to manage the message. That effort led to much of the social theory behind advertising and it includes the processes involving test audiences, polling, instant feedback devices for public speeches, the interaction between emotional and logical decision making, etc. (2) TV has conditioned the public to quick solutions for complicated problems. Everything is packaged as a short story where the problem is presented, the hero explores the people and evidence involved, and then wraps up the problem in time for the final credits. We all see that scripting repeated thousands of times and may have come to expect that in real life there will be a hero and neat instantaneous solution. (3) The public’s interest in the hard sciences, mathematics and economics has declined to almost zero and as such there few people in any local community that have a broad appreciation for any problem. Without respected locals to explain options, and with leadership that makes an emotional appeal for the ‘hero’ role, there is simply nobody to provide the problem background needed for intelligent voting. (4) Since the time of the East India Tea Co, we, at least the UK and the US, have evolved the idea that a corporation is to be treated as an individual in the eyes of the law. If BP in Texas, cuts the funding for refinery safety so that the plant blows up and kills dozens, then BP not the individuals that cut the safety budget is charged with manslaughter. If I get drunk and kill people while DWI I get charged with manslaughter and sent to jail. That penalty is for me deterring, but you can’t send BP to jail. They just get fined an amount that would be scary for an individual but is in the round off domain for a company. But we have taken this idea of corporate ‘individualism’ further and now are granting corporations full freedom of speech including the aspect of free speech that says you can give your money to influence public policy. Just as applying criminal penalties equally to individuals and corporations does not make sense neither does allowing unlimited political and lobbing giving. As individuals we might give $25, $100 or even $2000 to a candidate and if millions of us did that it would add up to big dollars. But us millions don’t speak with one voice and the candidate must speak to us via the media and message management. However, a corporation can with one check equal all our small contributions and a corporation speaks with one voice, the CEOs. That means we only get diluted influence while a few sting pullers can figuratively bribe the leadership, i.e. I’ll continue to match the donation I gave you for your last election advertising, but you need to work with my team (i.e. the experts in hard topics that corporations employ) on how to phrase the xyz law.

I argue from the left side, because I really do think there is a government role on managing the economy to provide all individuals with an opportunity. But I am almost as critical of Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress as I was of Bush and his Congress. McCain may have been a good president had he beat Bush in the 2000 primaries but his selection of Palin for VP clearly showed he was senile by 2008. Gore could not demonstrate that he could analyze positions in 2000 and his advocacy for AGW throughout the last 10 years continues to demonstrate that fault. His speech making shows no evidence of analysis results; that is there are no answers to any of the following questions: Yes there has been warming for most of the last 150 years but what evidence is there that it is caused by man? Yes CO2 levels have gone up but is that cause or effect? Why is this warming any different than the 150 year long warming periods that occurred in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan periods?

I have no doubt that Bush was the worst US president ever. How did he get elected? Rowe and cohorts in S. Carolina via ‘push polling’ painted McCain as having black daughter thereby giving the Bush the Super Tuesday win and the nomination, then the same group of Bush campaign manages spread the word that he was a Born Again and would overturn Roe v.Wade. Since Bush never overturned Roe (and legally had no power to do so) the campaign understory was a lie as was the primary story. The public elected a man based upon two lies, plus another related to Air National Guard service that Gore was unable to analyze. The public was not qualified to evaluate and we got hoodwinked by media manipulation. Bush was so bad that he basically guaranteed a Democratic win but just why did the Democrats pick an orator with no executive experience? For that matter why did they pick Gore or Kerry neither of whom are particularly adapt at selling a position. Basically the Democratic nominating convention includes the idea of “Super Delegates”. After everybody goes through the primary process two candidates will typically be close to the required majority but not over it. At the convention the super delegates then get the final say. They are biased in favor of party hacks (Gore and Kerry) but if they see a real opportunity for a win they go for the most electable candidate. Bill Clintons ‘impeachment’ was a media game orchestrated by Gingrich that the public was too uninformed to see through. The stench of that set the tone for the 2000 election and the super delegates tossed in Gore to repay for election support. Bush’s reelection in 2004 seemed assured so the super delegates tossed in Kerry again to repay political debts. Finally in 2008 the super delegates knew they could win and they had a choice between Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s a pretty decisive person and some of the stench from the B. Clinton presidency has rubbed off on her. The Super Delegates decide Obama is most electable and go with the orator that has a work history as a community organizer. To be a successful community organizer you have no legal power and must be a coalition builder. Put that man in Washington where the Republicans and the other nations in the world will not join a coalition and a man like Obama is helpless. The man won’t make decisions; he goes for consensus every time. His analysis focuses not on what is needed for the country but what is needed for consensus. Bush got to be the worst president by deciding everything from erroneous positions and for the good of his friends. Obama may get to be the second worse president because he doesn’t decide anything.

There have been two long paragraphs and I have not addressed Congress. I won’t bore with another long paragraph but I think you can see how corporate and special interests could utilize media, deep pockets and public naivety to give us poor choices.

The obvious question then becomes what can be done? I can’t be the ‘hero’ and provide the answer before the final credits because it just too complicated. But if I was going to design a solution I would take several steps to withdraw the privileges of corporations. It is sort of hard to do because corporations were formed under the old rules and reversing them after the fact is typically unacceptable. But now corporations are chartered by the states. It seems like it would be reasonable to say that the federal government does not recognize the state charter. That would mean that corporate officers would not be protected against personal criminal prosecution for federal crimes. But at the same time we could offer a federal corporation charter that provided appropriate protections but added restrictions that prevented federally charted corporations from political participation.

That change would eliminate the current funding and lobbing and probably force the political leadership to seek funding and guidance from the public. But it would be creating a vacuum and I have no way to reason out exactly how that vacuum would be filled.

Tom

[handlewanker]

Wow TomB, you sure know how rotton your political system is and how stupid the average Yank is when it comes down to deciding who's going to put the blinds on him to milk him dry.

I weep for yo'all, I deeply sympathise, but as I'm no expert on American political wrangling, I'll just briefly say that, hypothetically speaking, if'n Gore HAD become President, 'cos the people, bless their cotton socks, had thought he was a man of superior interlect and resolve, and Bush as Vice President had taken offence at the stupidity of the average yank to decide for hiself, and had taken out a contract on him, so removing a very annoying chapter in his life, would Bush, as Vice President, then become full blown President, (in spite of the fact that the people hated his guts), in the same way that Truman took over when wotsis name died in office in '45?

'Pears the will of the people can be overlooked in all cases at all times for all the good reasons, and quite legally too.

It's happened down in the Lucky Country of OZ too when Kevin Rudd, for whom I indirectly voted, got deposed by Julia Gillard, although I actually voted for the Australian Labour Party as a whole package, and 'Ol Ruddy seemed like a nice enough chap to front the gang.

We'all are very democratic in our freedom of choice, when it comes to voting in the good guys, and if'n you don't bother to cast a vote on polling day you get a fine, 'cos voting is compulsory, works every time.

I expect the Yanks could fund their presidential campaign several times over with fines from the people who couldn't care less on voting day if'n yo'all had our system.

The world stands in awe at the parade of the hopefulls every four years in Yankee land, and when the dust settles and the "best Man Wins", the world stands in awe once again as you tear him to shreds....is that some weird masochistic ritual or is it?

Of course the Corporations are the real engine driving the boat, money talks and always will.

Coporationism, the face of Capitalism that Communism didn't recognise.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

You mentioned Obama ruling by consensus...

That's exactly what Clinton did, and why he was so popular. Every week he reviewed the polls, and based his policy decisions based on what the polls were showing. He wasn't really governing, he was playing the "most popular" gambit. It worked.

People who should never have gotten loans did, and when the dominoes started to fall, the whole thing crumbled. That was a no-brainer in the making. With Clinton's signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the stage was set. Republicans and democrats working together, sealing our fate.

...........but there's some good news. I'm seeing some of my favorite words here more and more. It makes this whole website much more enjoyable, regardless of how painful the topic may be.....

This message is hidden because handlewanker is on your ignore list

Ahhhhhhhh......'tis a thing of beauty, eh?

[handlewanker]

Calm your self Fizzwizz, If'n Clinton hadn't "tested the waters" so to say, he might just as well go whistle in the wind, as a no policy formulator worth mentioning one term hasbeen, (he was a one termer wasn't he), and like all wise men, look before you leap, think before you act, and if'n acting is all you're good for, you'll be found out pretty damm soon, and no policy you can dream up will wow the crowd if it goes against what they expected from you when you solemly vowed to put state and country before all others, or was that a bit too Socialistic for the average pres nominee to contemplate?

There hasn't been one ruler, president, dictator, king or queen who can truthfully say "I did it my way" and got away with it.

It wasn't Clinton that caused the US of A to stumble in the world financial crash, it was the stupidity and naievity of the "lackland" proletariat coupled with the insatiable greed of the money purveyors that sought to line their pockets by manipulating the system come what may, and "it" did come didn't it, Clinton or no Clinton.

Now 'Ol Bama has the sorry task of shoring up the rotten walls of the banking system with brand shiny new paper promises, (you can't put new patches on old coats), to ensure that the wolves don't get too ambitious and snap at your heels more aggressively once they scent blood.

I expect eventually yo'all will come out of your malaise, but life better not go on as usual, because if'n it do, yo'all be heading for another financial crunch, and maybe next time the Chinese et al will not be so keen to paper their toilets with Greenbacks, having gone down that path before.

Next time they'll want tangible asset transfer, maybe a bit of land here and a bit of land there, you know how it goes, they already own large parts of the US indirectly, with home grown food production being shipped directly back to mainland China, disguised as "exports"...LOL.
Ian.

[TomB]

Wow TomB, you sure know how rotton your political system is .....

... and Bush as Vice President ....

Ian.

I believe that most of what I wrote, with the exception of the comments on super delegates at the Democratic Convention, is applicable to all of the western 'democracies'. The problem at the core is how the techniques of advertising can be use to manipulate public opinion. That does not make the public dumb, it is just well researched techniques that can 'spin' the argument and sway opinion via psychology that works on all groups.

I also noticed that you are a bit behind when it come to American elections. Although the constitution was originally written so that the runner-up in the election became the vice president that process was changed in 1804. Now the president and vice president are elected as a pair and the losing pair either goes home, continues in their old jobs, or perhaps becomes noisy talking heads as did Gore and Palin.

Tom

[handlewanker]

TomB, I agree with your observations, I'm out of touch when it comes to the political processes of your country, but I would go so far as to say that a person is considered dumb when they have to rely on someone else's point of view or interpretation of the parties vying for their "admiration".

You might just as well take a few dollars more to vote for the guy that has the dough and is prepared to buy his/her way to the top, just like that rat bag JFK, whose father invoked his mob connections via Franko Sinatra to ensure his son took the top prize, and they don't come more rotten than that.

So if'n the man at the top goes awol big time, the country gets second best automatically, like the Truman/Roosevelt thing back in '45.

It is well documented that Roosevelt kept Truman in the dark on all major issues, yet Truman was the man who's decision was to drop the A bomb.

Lucky or unlucky for the world if'n Roosevelt had lived longer and decided against it......we would never know what it looks like to blast someone to bits at the press of a button, and maybe the Ruskis would have had time to get in on the act and carved a bit of that Japanese pie for themselve.

Should be a very good reason to call another general election with the vice pres only having minor exec powers as a caretaker government in the interim.

Can yo'all imagine Gore being the top man with Palin as his side kick, and Gore going awol by default, yo'all would have had the first Female President of the US of A, whether you liked it or not......eat yo' heart out George Washington, the constitution don't cater for female needs.

I suppose in the true heart of Democracy, it doesn't matter who sits in the oval office, as long as the party line is observed, but when JFK was put down, who stepped into his shoes?..... I don't know, I wasn't there, but I think it was that "all the way with that LBJ" fella', correct me if'n I'm wrong, but that guy didn't sh!t any miracles either.

I sometimes wonder if the big corporations would do a better job of running the country, a main event not a side show, at least they have the expertise to make it pay and foreign policy would be dictated by market power not wars, it's very inconsiderate to make war on a trading partner and not very profitable.
Ian.

[Bloy2004]

you guys are SOOooo far off base it is truly laughable!!! LOL!

[handlewanker]

Yeeeees, Bloy, with comments like that "We'all" knows what yo' means, you could be more explicit and voice an opinion if yo' is capable, whatever, all the forum would do is either agree with youse or cut yo' guts out, be brave, yo'all have a right to be "hear".
Ian.