Democrats Are An Extreme, Radical Party(?)

[theeedude]

There is an independent running for Senate in Kansas. We'll see if there is really interest in electing one.

 

[SlickSnake]

What reality do you mean? I notice that we have an immigration disaster that neither party wants to address while claiming they do. Obama, while accusing the Republicans of stalling, has put off action on it until after the election at his party's request. In what kind of world does a man care more about getting his team re-elected than in doing what is right? I think that is the description of a man trapped in a system in which the greater good has been stood on its head.

To lead means to know what is right and to act on truth's behalf, by education, by example, and sacrifice if need be. Nobody votes, which is what the money class wants, because nobody believes their vote matters. Those who were elected profited from the status quo. They will not change a condition that means a win for them because the men who run have all been party vetted and party dependent on the money that takes. As long as the system is money dependent, those who have money will be served, first second, and third. The little people, the average American people don't matter and won't matter so long as they do nothing to change the system.

How did it happen that the interests of the American people don't matter. It happened because money was called speech and the reality of political speech is that it is propaganda. and all that money that is paid to the cunning immoral swine who know how to manipulate unsophisticated minds.

There is much truth here. This is the side of moony I would like to hear more from.

 

[Texashiker]

There is an independent running for Senate in Kansas. We'll see if there is really interest in electing one.

I doubt there will be any interest.

People are creatures of habit. They will keep voting for the same parties over and over.

 

[Victorian Gray]

there's 2 p's in shopping

Why tell me? I didn't draw the cartoon. <shrug>

 

[Jhhnn]

There is an independent running for Senate in Kansas. We'll see if there is really interest in electing one.

Indeed. Indications are that Orman has a good chance against Roberts, despite mewling & whining from Repubs about Taylor's withdrawal.

Roberts & the Repub brand are kinda tarnished in Kansas right now- they got what they wanted & turned state finances into a disaster in the process. Imagine that.

 

[alzan]

The united states has some of the lowest voter turnout of developed nations, but yet you want a constitutional convention?

We as a nation are so divided there is little we can agree on.

People for the most part vote their own personal interest over the interest of the nation.

Nothing is going to change. We are a highway to hell, and there are no stop signs.

People vote single issue or with their wallet (which is not necessarily one issue.)

With that attitude you're probably correct. When people take a defeatist attitude like that they've closed off all possibility of change.

 

[Texashiker]

With that attitude you're probably correct. When people take a defeatist attitude like that they've closed off all possibility of change.

Remember the bank bailout from 2008? Remember how pissed people were?

Kevin Brady, who voted for the bailout, had a libertarian running against him at the next election. Guess who won? Kevin Brady.

People are pissed congress does crap like bank bailouts. Then the voters turn around and vote the same exact people into office.

 

[Jhhnn]

Remember the bank bailout from 2008? Remember how pissed people were?

Kevin Brady, who voted for the bailout, had a libertarian running against him at the next election. Guess who won? Kevin Brady.

People are pissed congress does crap like bank bailouts. Then the voters turn around and vote the same exact people into office.

Yeh, people were pissed. They should have been pissed at themselves for voting Repubs into office so that they could create the biggest flimflam & collapse of any economic bubble since the 20's. The problem with the bailout is that it didn't go far enough- it didn't bail out the victims of predatory lending in any significant way.

 

[compuwiz1]

Yeh, people were pissed. They should have been pissed at themselves for voting Repubs into office so that they could create the biggest flimflam & collapse of any economic bubble since the 20's. The problem with the bailout is that it didn't go far enough- it didn't bail out the victims of predatory lending in any significant way.

Of course.....place no responsibility on the shoulders of the high risk borrower who took advantage of a loan product that allowed them to buy a home. Some people bought way more house than they could realistically afford, thanks to the no income verification loans. That was their fault. Just because I have a credit limit on one of my credit cards of $50K, that doesn't mean I am entitled to go ape shit crazy on spending, then whine about not being able to make my payments and expect to be bailed out. The loan products were designed to make it easier, with less hoops, for people to buy a house. It looked pretty good, until the true color of some of the buyers came out. All programs designed to help folks with less than perfect credit always backfire when the loans go bad. That is exactly why they appear so predatory, because the risks involved make them that way. People with bad credit and poor pay habits always drive costs up.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeh, people were pissed. They should have been pissed at themselves for voting Repubs into office so that they could create the biggest flimflam & collapse of any economic bubble since the 20's. The problem with the bailout is that it didn't go far enough- it didn't bail out the victims of predatory lending in any significant way.

Who reduced regulations that led to the banking collapse?

Bill Clinton.

As long as we point fingers at each other the people will never find a solution. Both parties are corrupt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course.....place no responsibility on the shoulders of the high risk borrower who took advantage of a loan product that allowed them to buy a home. Some people bought way more house than they could realistically afford, thanks to the no income verification loans. That was their fault. Just because I have a credit limit on one of my credit cards of $50K, that doesn't mean I am entitled to go ape shit crazy on spending, then whine about not being able to make my payments and expect to be bailed out. The loan products were designed to make it easier, with less hoops, for people to buy a house. It looked pretty good, until the true color of some of the buyers came out. All programs designed to help folks with less than perfect credit always backfire when the loans go bad. That is exactly why they appear so predatory, because the risks involved make them that way. People with bad credit and poor pay habits always drive costs up.

Yada, yada, yada.

Lots of people bought houses they could have afforded had their jobs not disappeared. Lots of people bought houses on variable rate loans where the interest rate skyrocketed. Lots of people believed that the bank wouldn't loan them more money than they could afford to pay back. Lots of young families were afraid they'd be priced out of the market forever if they didn't buy now. Lots of people were led to believe that housing prices would never go down & are still underwater.

Lots of pundits worked hard to convince them of that, GWB & a host of others-

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html

Might want to notice who published their bullshit.

Lots of financial institutions bent over backwards to lend money to everybody & their dog, free of interference by Bush era regulators, and to push ticking bomb MBS out the door onto investors.

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Hedge funds created MBS that they bet heavily against in the derivatives market, made a killing-

http://www.propublica.org/article/a...one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble

Lots of servicers squeezed every dime out of foreclosure scams.

Who won? The financial elite. Who lost? Everybody else.

None of which stops knee jerk right wing idiots from blaming the victims.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who won? The financial elite. Who lost? Everybody else.

What did someone say? Reality. Deal with it, or at least stop pretending you are different.

 

[unokitty]

All politicians accept money from the same lobbyists. All politicians seek money from the same .15% of the population from which they solicit campaign funds. When they are defeated, most all congress men go down to K street and become lobbyists.

Anyone that thinks a politician cares about them, or that their political party makes a significant difference, is deluding themselves.

Uno

 

[Jhhnn]

Who reduced regulations that led to the banking collapse?

Bill Clinton.

As long as we point fingers at each other the people will never find a solution. Both parties are corrupt.

Puh-leeze. Nevermind that Gramm-Leach-Billey Passed the Senate on a partisan Repub vote, or that it was part of a lager fiscal deal where Repubs were pioneering their taking the govt hostage extortion technique. Nevermind that the end of Glass-Steagal was a fait accompli.

Whose bill was it, anyway? Those sponsors were all Repub. One of the voices raised against it at the time was prophetic-

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

Who stood against reform legislation & the agency created to enforce it?

Whose fan base still believes in the ultimate goodness of deregulated free market capitalism in a financialized international free trade environment?

Who are those fucking idiots, anyway, other than your fellow travelers in the delusional Repub base?

 

[Jhhnn]

What did someone say? Reality. Deal with it, or at least stop pretending you are different.

Who thwarts attempts to deal with it, to restore some balance & safety to the financial system?

 

[Sonikku]

Washington was about as neutral as Joe Lieberman. Simply not putting a political party tag on your shirt doesn't make you neutral.

 

[Texashiker]

<snp>

Whose fan base still believes in the ultimate goodness of deregulated free market capitalism in a financialized international free trade environment?

Who signed the bill into law?

Clinton did.

You want to talk about free market? The federal reserve has been dumping $85 billion a month into the economy the whole time while obama has been president.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who thwarts attempts to deal with it, to restore some balance & safety to the financial system?

And who supports the lack of accountability for mass killings, not even making attempts at restitution or justice? Oh, yeah, it's not you or the Dems. Well it is money TH is talking about, something more important perhaps?

It's not that he's right, but you are no better, but about different things. You and he aren't left or right. You are party conservatives. Yes, everything "they" do is wrong, but when it comes time for your party to perhaps take a chance on doing something because it's right? Well it's the other party's fault. Democrats and Republicans both signed up for this war you have been defending in Syria. Both Democrats and Republicans have objected to it as well. You cry against Bush and Obama uses the same justifications as he did, in fact he probably stretched the legal justification quite a ways in order to allow his attacking this huge threat on our safety and amureca. So please don't get righteous. You aren't qualified.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who signed the bill into law?

Clinton did.

You want to talk about free market? The federal reserve has been dumping $85 billion a month into the economy the whole time while obama has been president.

And you, let's see how you justify the fact that the aluminum tubes that were presented in evidence against Saddam of a nuclear program by Bush weren't usable. He was told that before his speech by Sandia, and if you don't know who they were look it up. Suffice it to say they are THE experts on this matter, not Bush.

But I will say one thing of little comfort. You're honest. It didn't matter if Saddam was responsible, someone had to pay, and if Bush could exploit that fear like Obama is now for military action that's fine with you. That it eventually lead to full scale war and ruin at the cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands doesn't matter. A scapegoat was needed so one (plus a half a million) was had, which incidentally caused the current mess we find ourselves in. You got something right a while back when you understood that the Treaty of Versailles directly led to the conditions which caused WWII in Europe. How can you not see that Bush has done the same with ISIS? That does not forgive Obama and his sycophants supporting him a reasonable excuse to inflate danger and use the same fear tactics, but the facts remain, we're in it because of stupidity, avarice, power and fear, the four constants too many embrace.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's precisely the other way around. They are non-thinking automatons because that's what the voters demand. Deviation from the party line gets you a primary challenge.

The moderates didn't disappear for no reason, the voters demanded that they be purged.

Voter demands are conditional upon the context in which they are generated. In a competitive system voters will demand to win. In a capitalist system the winners will tell the losers how they can win. Of course that will be, 'don't change the system' because it's working for the winners. When enough people see the system is rigged against them and can't be changed they will become apathetic and cease to vote, and so long as sufficient bread and circuses exist to keep them distracted things will stay the same.

Man has two options, improve the system so it functions with justice and equality, or wait for the devolution of the system that will happen naturally to reach the point of system collapse, so that everybody loses. We need only look at history to know the option we have always chosen so far.

The conscious mind is not attached to things. Attachment is fear.

 

[Moonbeam]

DP

 

[Moonbeam]

Who thwarts attempts to deal with it, to restore some balance & safety to the financial system?

Are the Democrats running Hillary or Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Texashiker]

But I will say one thing of little comfort. You're honest. It didn't matter if Saddam was responsible, someone had to pay, and if Bush could exploit that fear like Obama is now for military action that's fine with you. That it eventually lead to full scale war and ruin at the cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands doesn't matter. A scapegoat was needed so one (plus a half a million) was had, which incidentally caused the current mess we find ourselves in. You got something right a while back when you understood that the Treaty of Versailles directly led to the conditions which caused WWII in Europe. How can you not see that Bush has done the same with ISIS? That does not forgive Obama and his sycophants supporting him a reasonable excuse to inflate danger and use the same fear tactics, but the facts remain, we're in it because of stupidity, avarice, power and fear, the four constants too many embrace.

Thank you.

In a way, I feel sorry for Saddam. I now understand why he ruled with an iron hand.

Awhile back I posted about a theory that if hitler had never risen to power that world war II would have been caused by stalin.

The united States took Saddam out, which created a power vacuum in Iraq. When we pulled out of iraq, this allowed isis to rise.

The only long term solution is to restore a strong handed dictator to power.

Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam and Bashar al-Assad, they are in power for a reason. The more we meddle, the more we risk creating a power vacuum for a tyrant to rise to power.

 

[D-Man]

Voter demands are conditional upon the context in which they are generated. In a competitive system voters will demand to win. In a capitalist system the winners will tell the losers how they can win. Of course that will be, 'don't change the system' because it's working for the winners. When enough people see the system is rigged against them and can't be changed they will become apathetic and cease to vote, and so long as sufficient bread and circuses exist to keep them distracted things will stay the same.

Man has two options, improve the system so it functions with justice and equality, or wait for the devolution of the system that will happen naturally to reach the point of system collapse, so that everybody loses. We need only look at history to know the option we have always chosen so far.

The conscious mind is not attached to things. Attachment is fear.

Well said. I like the panem et circenses Where have I heard that before?

 

[IGBT]

democrat party went from a blue collar worker / achiever party to a bunch of frothing at the mouth alarmist eco-KOOK marxist / leninist fundamentalist mob.