There is a functional difference between the Democrats and Republicans?
That is, arn’t we at this point now just a one-party ‘dare not to dissent’ gov’t in the US?
I am not asking this to start a fight, but rather to get some idea of the people I will be dealing with here.
Pitifully small, but present.
For example, if Gore had won I’d bet dollar to doughnut that we’d still be in half-hamster-man but I would also wager that we wouldn’t in in Iraq and gearing up to invade Iran. Likewise on domestic issues like gay marriage, affirmative action, welfare, medicare/medicaid, and other wedge issues/special interest group pandering there is a pretty clear divide (with some notable exceptions on each side).
Yes but if Gore didn’t want to, or wasn’t ordered to ‘win’ then it proves my point. I mean look at Kerry X, do you honestly think the whole Skull and Bones thing was just one of those coincidences? There arn’t any in politics – historical precedence.
You know… they still have ‘elections’ in a fascism – they’re just rigged. I mean… don’t Americans study history? It’s overtly obvious if you dip a little bit of historical precedence into this olive oil modern concoction of total control.
If this is all sounding a little ‘out there’ then perhaps google ‘Naomi Wolf’
Personally i wish there were no such thing as “parties” and just candidates with their particular agendas. I hate that ya gotta “register under a particular party” and if you do not do so, you can’t vote for the candidate whom you want to have run for office.
But on another note, if gore had won we might still be in Iraq, but through the magic of stem cell research he would have created a race of half man half bear-pig warriors. Or is that half man-bear, half pig?
That’s just power-politics at the end of the day. A bunch of republican appointees on the Supreme court and a powerful propaganda network blaring that Bush won lead to Gore’s loss, and Kerry was a pretty boring candidate to begin with couple with Rove manipulating the electoral votes. Power politics is to be expected.
Likewise with the fact that politicians are connected – this makes sense, they are all in the same business at this point (politics, getting elected) and they were all incredibly wealthy to begin with (being wealthy is a prerequisite of success in politics). They are bound to share a lot of the same connections.
I guess I’m asking: so what? This is all in perfectly plain sight. I don’t think this is sufficient to say that they are “functionally the same thing” anymore than I think that since both Japan and America are industrialized nations they are “functionally the same thing”. It only works if extreme equivocation is employed.
Exactly man!
See we agree sort of.
In response to ‘So what’ I would say… so why not what? I mean honestly… you just passed the answer!
The trick of it, for me anyway, is that it has always been like this. I mean, even Andrew Jackson who presented himself as a “man of the people” was new money from real-estate and in early America the divide between new and old money was slight indeed.
It is the status quo. Not necessarily a noble one that people want to brag about, but one that people also readily recognize.
Perhaps Skull & Bones is really in control of this country. Wasn’t Clinton a member too?
It would be a manbearpig.
Like I said… historical precedence. Set down the math books for a sec and check out Naomi I say…
Consider: The Nazi’s never lost the war, they just had to move. When WW2 ended operation paperclip brought all the scientists and Werner Von Brown types over so the Russians couldn’t get them…
What type of work did they continue on with? Brain control — MKUltra. Technology to seriously force that status quo into a certain position and keep it where it is needed/desired.
The Cellphone towers are connected to the chemtrails – it’s all the same program… sort of.
‘Status Quo’ – that is the key here but I must go as my batter is literally about to die.
I don’t think, but all the US presidents are connected in various ways. Sort like like a grooming school for potentials…
anyways… battery dead.
I became a disenfranchised voter in October of 2001 when the Democrats almost(Kucinich the exception) unanimously voted for the PATRIOT ACT.
The dangerous path we have been following the past 6+ years is the fault of both parties, but it is the active plan of the Republican Party. This is what we get from an empowered Republican Party, and a passive Democratic party.
If the Democrats were to feel empowered, and take active control over the direction the country, I think there is a chance another course will be taken.
I believe that if more rational minds are to prevail, the Democratic party must be empowered.
They’re both equally stodgy, weak-willed and reactionary, yes, but conspiracy theories are the work of weak minds. The very structure of our two-party system has almost ensured our current situation from the very beginning, nothing more.
Then perhaps conspirators are very intelligent if they know people think all conspiricy theories are silly. As soon as we stop paying attention to important things, that’s when corruption creeps in.
I think it’s funny how the ideologies of both parties has changed over time.
Hey… i agree it started as a two party system…
Anyways… my definiton of a weak mind is someone who does not examine all of the questions. I am a conspiracy theoriest on this forum, but I live a well rounded enough life I think – what is wrong with trying to get to the bottom of things? I think we can agree the world’s path at this point is one that can go in many directions, it’s very precarious… and yet I look around the world and all I see are a loss of freedoms and a crackdown towards what all the intellects and sci-fi writers have warned of for years and years with urgency – we there is more going on in our lives than the shit we’re spoofed by the TV. There is a plan for us, and I don’t personally think we’re going to like it when we realize where we are at.
Here’s how I see it: cracks knuckles
Okay, no matter what, we as a population, within a society, will always be subordinates of some form of a reigning class or entity, of which is usually in the form of government. Now, these governments have evolved through the centuries accordingly with societal upheavals and changes. Currently, we are in what is either the trough or peak of an Enlightenment-inspired period of democracy.
Considering that it is contemporarily significant to us, I will talk about democracy. Essentially, what differentiates democracy from past systems of governance is its separation of powers, which is obvious. Since power has been allocated to the masses, or–in a republicanism sense–to representatives of the masses, the usual ongoing process of political revolution and resolution has been somewhat stagnated or watered down. Revolution from opposing parties comes about through election days rather than through war (hypothetically speaking).
Either way, the top of every pyramid wants to stay at the top; the base of every political party–its masses–may believe greatly in the values set forth by the party, but very rarely do the leaders of the said party–its representatives–adhere to the same beliefs. They would essentially rather harbor their, democratically limited, devices and offices of power. So since the top echelon of every party and interest group are after the same thing, power, that means that democracy itself can be said to be the great equalizer of such a field of competition.
Democrats and Republicans, despite their contradicting beliefs at their base, are both, fundamentally pursuing the same thing at the leadership vein. Therefore, all a campaigner has to do is spew out the same recycled ideology of their respective party to an unwitting base in order to get reelected.
I for one embrace this form of government, merely because it does limit powers and allows for the sheeple to be exploited in the most ‘humane’ manner. Therefore, the ruling class can still sell illusions of power and egalitarianism to the masses, while still being too preoccupied with their own bickering and warped egos to hinder the aspirations of authentic persons.
Of course, the only thing that can break this Machiavellian system down is the lingering threat of the panicky masses losing their beloved illusions of security; i.e. the threat of terrorism or some other ‘them’ who are against ‘us’. Since they, the masses, have but one thing to barter with–the separation of powers–they will, if so compelled, give up more power to the most promising leadership (usually a conservative party) so as to insure the safety of their ‘securities’.
Then again, if financial welfare of an entire people were threatened in the same manner, than it could be said that the afflicted masses would just as easily sacrifice their individuality for a liberal state as well.
I agree. I change parties when the other one is in too much control.
The criteria for either party’s definition seems to be based only on what ceritian presidents have done in the past.
Dems and Reps are so deep into each other’s pockets and beds there is no seperation. Its all for ratings and to keep up the pretense of a sickly democracy. Power and prestige is all its about. We pay them to look pretty and order us about. Take them all out back behind the White house and beat them all with a Cat-O- Ninetails and stop paying them. Pay them after they do the job right. If they screw up , don’t pay them.
Ooh, Kris. That’s awesome. 
Sorry Murex. I know it was a bit ranty, politicians rile me a bit. The pretense of political parties is disgusting now. It started for valid needs and reasons, now it is a mockery of truth in order to gain power and financial status. Politicians make lawyers look like angels.