Throwing the Parties by Bytemite

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Would like to see ALL of our so called reps fall off... in favor off those who understand their place.

Supposed to be servants of the people. Following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Not this garbage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:07 AM

Quote:
"Fall" is a loaded word, possibly suggesting unpleasantries.
I wanna see 'em all replaced is all.

Sure, new parties, with people who actually care about the issues, not the same as the old parties, and hopefully more than two.

Or maybe just people running on an independent ticket. Right now, I could go either way. Just, anything different from what we CURRENTLY HAVE, minus a military coup or dictatorship.

I just seems like the only way we're going to be able to accomplish anything (anything good, NOT HEALTHCARE. Fixing problems) is if we somehow defeat the current parties and make something new.

I'm looking for ideas on how to go about defeating them. Locally, nationally, just anything to get them out of office. The only two things I can think of is expose and challenge. Expose all the dirt on our career politicians, from both parties and anyone who tries to step up into the void, then build up grassroots campaigns for independent candidates to run against them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Who else here couldn't care less whether one seat goes Democrat or one seat goes Republican?

I've heard on several occasions that the political parties leaderships are much more polarized, and tend to be more "pure" in their ideology, than the population in general. They only get folks elected because there just isn't anyone else to vote for, what with any House of Reps campaign costing millions, and running for Senate tens of millions. Public funding brings up the argument of limiting special interests' participation vs. allowing freedom of speech.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:07 PM

Hmm, I've got a meeting really soon, so I'll have to process this and get back to you Geezer.

Gino offered an interesting idea:

Quote:

Perhaps without faith in any third party candidates, the electorate is all about the protest vote now...

If you are not happy, strike down the incumbent,

switch from republican to democrat and back again until you get something that is responsive to the voters and not the party line.

Unfortunately for that to work, I think you would need elections every six months

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:47 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The other thread about the Massachusetts election has gone off on some side points, so in the spirit of unity I wanted to start a discussion on things I think we all want that we have in common and that we want to work for.

First off, I think even the most liberal among us can agree that the health care plan has become a grotesque shambling nightmare. I no longer feel that any sort of health care reform can happen in America that's beneficial to the public until we remove various special interests from behind the scenes.

Agreed. Sad to say, though, I don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. Why? Because the special interests and lobbyists benefit the incumbents. Everybody who's running for office is "against" the special interests and lobbyists - until the day they win their election, and those same special interests start funneling money their way. At that point, they've been co-opted, and are for all intents and purposes bought and paid for.

In other words, the day you start taking their money (which is generally the day RIGHT AFTER the day you win an election), is the day you start fighting for THEIR interests before the interests of your "constituents" (such a quaint concept, constituents).

Quote:

Step one is killing the beast. This healthcare plan has just got to go. I'd like to extend congratulations to the conservatives on this board celebrating the election of a Republican in Massachusetts. If that kills this farce, then good. There's still some sort of special reconciliation goobledygook they can do, but this is a blow and it could be the deathblow. For something I thought I wanted, I'm not sorry to see it go.

Yuppers, gotta agree with ya on most of that.

Remember, though, this is politics, and it's never been a clean game. The Democrats have to allow the votes to be counted and the election to be certified before Scott Brown can be seated as a Senator. They'll drag that out as long as possible, and they'll be pushing to hurry up and get an up or down vote on the healthcare bill BEFORE he can take his post, while the interim guy is still in power. I'm not saying that's "right"; I'm saying it's politics.

But if electing Scott Brown kills this bill, then so be it. That's the cost of fucking around and not doing something when they had the power and the chance, which is EXACTLY what the Democrats did. They can blame the roadblock Republicans all they want, but if they - all 60 Democrats and Independents who caucus with them - REALLY WANTED to do it, they would have worked together to get it done. They didn't, so what use are they to me? (And if that sounds cold of me to say, once again I must reiterate: This is politics. It's not personal; it's business. If you aren't working FOR my interests, what good are you to me? This sounds harsh, but it's exactly how politicians do the math. They just don't like being treated the way they like to treat us.)

Quote:

So second thing. Who else here couldn't care less whether one seat goes Democrat or one seat goes Republican? Who here thinks it's pointless exercise that ultimately won't change anything because there seems to be only one guy in Washington who's honest, and he's consistently and unfortunately painted as a kook?

Well, I don't know about that. I assume you're talking about Ron Paul, but then I'd also have to assume you've never heard of guys like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or Russ Feingold. Feingold, you may not remember, was the ONLY U.S. Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, one of only a few to vote against the Iraq War, and has voted to either substantially curb or sunset entirely the Patriot Act every time it's come up for renewal.

Quote:

Who'd like to see both parties and the electorate fall (EDIT: or replaced) in favour of something populist and democratic?

Anyone? Feel free to sound off here.

(Raises hand). I would! I would! I'd also like to see some restrictions on the benefits that our congresspeople get. Health insurance is one of them. NO taxpayer money for healthcare for Congress, PERIOD. They get paid better than most of us do; let 'em buy their own. Hey, it's good enough for US, right?

Also, tie their benefits and pensions to years in service. And if you're convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office, you lose those bennies and that cushy pension. Hey, we do it for cops! :)

In other words, WE THE PEOPLE start treating these fuckers like what they are: OUR EMPLOYEES, not our lords and masters. And if they don't like it, I'd strongly suggest they go work in the public sector.

But like I said, I don't see any of that happening soon, or really ever. Be nice, though, wouldn't it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:32 PM

Quote:
Well, I don't know about that. I assume you're talking about Ron Paul, but then I'd also have to assume you've never heard of guys like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or Russ Feingold. Feingold, you may not remember, was the ONLY U.S. Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, one of only a few to vote against the Iraq War, and has voted to either substantially curb or sunset entirely the Patriot Act every time it's come up for renewal.

I may have to adjust my list of honest people in Washington upwards depending on who else people suggest. But it's a very short list still.

Dennis Kucinich... is interesting. He seems to be much further left than most anyone else out there. I like a lot of what he says domestic policy-wise and his anti-war stance, but he likes to rely a little too much on foreign powers for my tastes, and sometimes I think he contradicts himself, which tends to make me wary. For me, jury's out on him, but one thing I can say in his favor is that even his own party doesn't seem to like him much.

I never quite convinced myself that Obama would keep his promises. I wanted him to, though, my trust in the entire system was flagging at that point, and then he betrayed everything I'd hoped for in the worst way possible. No, I don't think I'll ever trust any Democrat or even anyone famous who identifies strongly left ever again. I'll always probably agree with the left-wing stance on domestic policy, but now practicality demands I see it all for what it is, a pipe dream. A very very expensive pipe dream that could end up with a huge government that's everywhere in our private lives.

Quote:
Sad to say, though, I don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. Why? Because the special interests and lobbyists benefit the incumbents. Everybody who's running for office is "against" the special interests and lobbyists - until the day they win their election, and those same special interests start funneling money their way. At that point, they've been co-opted, and are for all intents and purposes bought and paid for.

That's why we need to start fighting back against the corrupt elements and putting honest people in who do genuinely care. Like Ron Paul (yeah, that's who I meant, and even if you don't like his policies or think he's a kook, I don't think anyone can argue that he's not honest), and perhaps like your recommendations.

It's not an anarchist cooperative, but it's baby steps. Right now I'd just be happy taking back the machinery for ourselves. I'm sick of it working against us. I'm sick of waiting for the machine to succumb to years of misuse by it's operators. It'll be easier to carefully deconstruct it and rebuild it how we want if it's in our hands. Of course, I'd like for it to not be rebuilt at all and to try something different, but if I can do my thing over here and people who want it reestablished can do their thing over there, then it's the best of all worlds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:20 PM

I would sure like to see something besides the two party system. This is not working. Not sure how to go about changing things, but bringing this out into the open to discuss is a good first step.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:47 AM

I'd remind everybody, as Frem has done repeatedly as well, that you have to start small. Start local, and SUPPORT THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES.

You don't have to agree with everything they stand for. Hell, if it helps, just find the one you disagree with the least, and work for getting him or her elected. And keep doing so, up the ladder, from local to county, state, and then federal positions. Every time you vote in a candidate from a weak third party, you strengthen that party and cut one more leg of support out from under the two big parties. Keep chopping, and at some point they'll either change or topple.

And when you find someone like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders (he's far, FAR left, and represents New Hampshire as an Independent, and is an avowed Democratic Socialist, according to his website) at the national level, SUPPORT THEM. Volunteer when you can, but more importantly, GIVE MONEY. Why? Because money talks. Ron Paul made a splash not with his message, but because he was raising so much money so fast in novel new ways. THAT was what got him noticed and mentioned on the news.

Sure, money's evil (or so they say). But it DOES get you noticed and talked about, and THAT gets you more money and a seat at the Big Table.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

1. How long have third-party candidates of one ilk or another been around, and how much viability have they gained in all that time?

2. Yes I care which party, because in SOME WAYS one is better than the other.

3. As I said elsewhere, voting Repub then Dem then Repub, etc., would take a long time, mean we have novices in all the time, and just mean the Dems have a huge majority (if you started from now), then the Repubs, then the Dems, etc., which actually might be WORSE. Besides, you couldn't get people to do it.

4. I don't know how, but I DO believe getting rid of the special interests is half the problem. Campaign finance reform.

5. I don't think putting Brown in is anything but stupid...except for the fact that I want the health care bill as it stands now killed, I fear he'll do more harm than good.

6. I don't blame the Dems for blowing the healthcare thing...I blame Obama, for not getting down to brass tacks and working on it, explaining it to the people, and being so stuck on his goddamned idea of "bipartisanship" that he blew his chance. But the Dems in the Senate aren't all "Dems", and I guess it's a typical politician who wants to blackmail to get special shit; we need to do away with that, too.

7. Filibuster has to go; Repubs are using it on everything; wanna wager what happens when the Dems are out of power, as in they'll start using it the same? Means government goes NOWHERE. Great.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I don't blame the Dems for blowing the healthcare thing...I blame Obama, for not getting down to brass tacks and working on it, explaining it to the people, and being so stuck on his goddamned idea of "bipartisanship" that he blew his chance. But the Dems in the Senate aren't all "Dems", and I guess it's a typical politician who wants to blackmail to get special shit; we need to do away with that, too.
"

How about... maybe THE People didnt want "healthcare reform. Maybe Insurance reform, sure.

But we dont want the government in our healthcare.

Period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:32 AM

Thank's for the reminder Kwicko. Feeling charged up now. Will commence chopping.:)

I actually met Ron Paul several years ago when I was going through my libertarian phase. I know he lost a few old time followers during the last election because of some of the more violent elements he was attracting to his campaign.

I voted for Obama, but after this past year I am leaving the democratic party. Think I will check out Bernie Sanders.

But yeah, start local. Think I'll vote contrarian next time. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:44 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Look, its corny. But this is how you have to think when going up against these beasts. Are we going to change the world for the better? Are we BrownCoats or what?

Are we going to take down these smiley bastards?

Hit them hard, don't quit.

Until we the people, win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:58 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I don't blame the Dems for blowing the healthcare thing...I blame Obama, for not getting down to brass tacks and working on it, explaining it to the people, and being so stuck on his goddamned idea of "bipartisanship" that he blew his chance. But the Dems in the Senate aren't all "Dems", and I guess it's a typical politician who wants to blackmail to get special shit; we need to do away with that, too.
"

How about... maybe THE People didnt want "healthcare reform. Maybe Insurance reform, sure.

But we dont want the government in our healthcare.

Period.

How many people are rejecting the current bill BECAUSE the public option is off the table.

Little early to say exactly what the public wants on the basis of one bi-election

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM

Quote:

5. I don't think putting Brown in is anything but stupid...except for the fact that I want the health care bill as it stands now killed, I fear he'll do more harm than good.

This is really the wrong thread for this, but I felt the need to comment on it nonetheless. Niki, as a fellow "lefty liberal looney", I have to say I disagree on Brown. Sure, he's a tool, and a nincompoop, and while he SAYS he's "independent", he's voted straight down the Republican party line something like 98% of the time, which SOUNDS about as "independent" as Mitch McConnell or Lindsay Graham.

But we'll find out for sure if he's bad or good over the next 34 months, which is how long he's got before he has to run again. Remember, the last Republican Massachusetts sent to the U.S. Senate was Henry Cabot Lodge (anybody remember THAT name?), and that was in 1952. Massachusetts just isn't a "conservative" state, and even the people there who claim to be "conservative" aren't very.

So in 34 months we're going to find out (a) how "independent" Brown is, (b) how Republican he really is, (c) how CONSERVATIVE he really is, and (d) whether he's enough of any of those things to keep support from the Tea-Bag Party. And we'll find out if the tea-baggers are still around (which I strongly doubt they will be).

So I see him as a good barometer.

But let's limit further discussion of him to his very own thread, if you please.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:27 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wulf:

Quote:
But we dont want the government in our healthcare

Whatcho mean "we", kimo sabe? Try

Quote:
How many people are rejecting the current bill BECAUSE the public option is off the table.

Count me as one of those.

And oh, please, not another of your fictional hero videos...this is real life, y'know? Rocky never existed, y'know?

Woa Mike!

Quote:
But let's limit further discussion of him to his very own thread, if you please.

Lemme see if I got this wrong: The thread is about the election in Massachusetts, right? And Brown WON the election in Massachusetts, right? And that's what all the hullabaloo is about, right? But we can't discuss Brown? Uh...I'm missing something here...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:43 PM

Niki, I could've sworn I clicked onto a thread titled "Throwing The Parties", which was dealing primarily with how to get rid of the two major parties that are running things (into the ground).

The thread specifically devoted to Scott Brown was titled "Democrats Just Got A Butt Kicking" or some such, if I'm not mistaken. I was suggesting our conversation about him might be better carried on over there.

Maybe that's just me, though. [shrugs]

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:14 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Here is another idea to change the status quo

( ties in a little with the new campaign finance crap )

If a group formed and raised money to challenge the system as it stands now...

then singled out one influential incumbent republican and one democrat

then showed up at campaign time with that money and resources and aggressively campaigned against that person... not favoring any of the competition but acting to remove that one individual by attacking their voting record, expenses, pork barreling and whatever. Dirt slinging, investigations, whatever it took to axe them.

A Bipartisan political hit squad in other words. As resources increased you hit two of each and so on...

Likely volunteers wouldn't be hard to find

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Littlebird:
I actually met Ron Paul several years ago when I was going through my libertarian phase. I know he lost a few old time followers during the last election because of some of the more violent elements he was attracting to his campaign.

I never understood why folks blamed him for that, I mean, loudmouthed racist dickheads pay taxes too, and prolly ain't no more happy about that, or how they're used, than any of us are.

That's the problem with stuff like this, is that folks want 100% concordance with their own agenda in order to accept allies, which is foolish at best.

Of course, that ain't to say I would *like* dealing with folk like that, and wouldn't be planning to torpedo them handily where our purposes conflicted, but such is the nature of politics, it being a subset of the wickedness that is Government.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:15 PM

Frem

Yes, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is probably not a very good idea.

I left the Libertarian party 3 years ago for the Dems. I knew a third party could not stand up against the opposition and it was important to get them out! Now I can't stand either one.

I still support Ron Paul in many ways. I would love to see someone take down the CIA. But that is another topic.

Going to check out Bernie Sanders and explore my local political scene a bit more.

I also think Gino has some interesting ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:55 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Hey LittleBird. Just wanted to say thanks for joining in the conversation(s).

Nice to hear a new voice!
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:46 PM

Why thank you Pizmobeach. I am very happy to be here amongst all you good people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:07 AM

From: the Dept Of "And then what happens?"

Again, not tryin to rain on your parade here, but I'd be kinda remiss in my duty to be a rational voice were I to not point out potential problems before they blow up in one's face...

And, as has been said - improvised solutions work best when planned long in advance.

And so, say you manage to get your third party Congressman elected...

Remember, you're dealing with a cabal that obeys the rules only because, and only when, those rules stack the deck in their favor - as soon as those rules become a hindrance or inconvenience, they WILL be ignored.

In short, They'll just laugh in your face and refuse to seat them.

Historically that goes back to the Civil War/Reconstruction Era, starting with vallandigham, and somewhat after, when Congress refused to seat many former Confederates, whether they were elected or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

And the idea of installing an off-party candidate in order to actually represent the people, well, that goes back to Victor Berger, one of those dreaded "commie-liberal-anarchists" that have in fact brought us nearly every bit of real social progress we ever had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B03E4D9153EE433A25752C
1A9679C946195D6CF

Then there was Clayton Powell, who was no more corrupt than any of the others, but happened to have committed the criminal offense of being, well, black..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clayton_Powell,_Jr.

And this is not a fully inclusive list, there's been a couple more I don't have references handy for, for the most part being anti-war, or at least oppositing the neo-fascism of the military-corporate empire, is what did them in, but there was at least one, damned if I remember his name, who got bounced for being a corrupt, racist dickhead - but an elected one, and as such not too different from Zell Miller or Strom Thurmond, and thus there was no proper cause to remove him.

I do note Powells case can be exploited as a potential legal defense here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack
IF, of course, they even bother to pretend to care what the law says, which they won't unless people MAKE them.

Most recent of this kinda thing was Burris, which I am sure many of you remember, but that's a slightly different angle, election-versus-appointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris

Conversely, there SHOULD be a method for preventing someone previously impeached and convicted of misusing a high office from then running for Congress, but there apparently isn't - passing strange that they *DID* seat Hastings, despite having a hell of a lot more cause to refuse than any other previous "problem child" - guess they knew a bird of their own feather when they saw it, eh ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

So, by some miracle you do get your candidate elected, and they laugh you off and refuse to seat them cause they ain't part of the cabal...

THEN WHAT ?

Something you seriously need to think about, AND have a set of contingency plans for to blindside them laid down well in advance, with enough operational security that they'll have no clue of it till you steamroller the bastards.

-Frem

PS. That's kinda why I like Kuchinich, although I disagree with him quite bitterly on some things, primarily his lack of respect for the Second Amendment, but he's got balls of steel and is willing to speak truth to power no matter what it costs him - and he *earnestly believes* in making the world a better place, up to and including being one of the few Congressman other than George Miller to give anything resembling a shit about youth rights...

He thinks the drinking age should be lowered, which makes sense since if you're responsible enough to join the army, you're responsible enough to have a beer, you ask me - AND he's the ONLY one who agrees with me that if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to vote!

I'd be willing to work with him on just about anything else, but when it comes to the right to self defense, I'll torpedo his ass six ways to sunday every time he even comes near it - cause he wants a total ban, and doesn't seem inclined to settle for anything less, which means you couldn't *trust* him about it anyways.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:22 AM

Oh, speakin of racist dickheads, this'll entertain you a bit, I mentioned it in passing before.

Guy I know, well, kinda second-third cousin "know" (and do not like), he's like one of the MOST racist asshats I've ever met, he SAYS he ain't Klan, but I put that in the same range as Nixon sayin he wasn't a crook, right ?

It's really kinda sad, cause he's right damned smart (he's a freakin engineer!) for a racist, sexist, religiously intolerant git.

Back before this last presidental election, he's on the phone with me, and the conversation goes from amusing to roll outta the chair funny.

Firstoff, he's pretty hard-right, but not neo-con, learned to passionately HATE Bush, and was by NO means gonna support McCain "and the bimbo" cause they were "giving all our money to the jews" (s'funny how ironic these types are, yes ?), and the only place women belong is in the kitchen - besides, he's more old school redneck dixiecrat of the Zell Miller stripe anyways, so he's stuck pulling the blue lever with all those "damn liberal hippies"...

And the nomination comes up between Hillary and Obama, and being the intolerant type of dude he is, cannot stomach the idea of a woman in power and her views on gun control make his balls shrivel into peas, so there's me...

Listening to a fuckin Klansman rant, rave and scream on the phone at me over the fact that he has NO CHOICE but to vote for "one of THEM" because all the other options are somehow even WORSE, and what the hell has the world come to when THIS is what he has to go pull the lever for.
And as he's gettin madder, I'm laughing harder, which is pissin him off worse, till he finally pitches the phone out the window into the creek.

And yes, he *DID* vote for Obama.

It's moments like that, you get to treasure FOREVER!

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:27 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah.

It was a choice between a Giant Douche, or a Turd Sandwich.

Not much of a choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, my ONE remark about Brown was only one of several, the others devoted to the subject at hand. And I think he's a prime example of "voting the bastards out" and why it can be stupid. I was making a point; sorry you didn't catch the other points I was making and thought that one remark meant I was trying to turn the subject to Brown. Added to the fact that you said yourself that you see him as a barometer, I'm surprised you didn't get it.

Frem, you had me smiling reading your story...I did think at one point how tough it would be for those who are bigoted in every direction; Hillary v. Obama, then McCain/PALIN v. Obama. No good choice for their predudices.

NOT so funny is the fact that I think the vast majority of us (except those of us actually hoping Obama meant change) have spent years now voting for the "lesser of two evils" anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:51 AM

Actually, Niki, I was trying to pull that one out of the thread and redirect it to a thread already going on about him, in an effort to NOT let the "hot news of the day" derail this thread.

Which it has now, of course. Perfect example of the Law of Unexpected Consequences.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 9:05 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I'm still missing something. You said "in an effort to NOT let the "hot news of the day" derail this thread" and that it has already. Uh, this thread was about throwing the parties out, and I think, aside from my one response to you, that is still what it's about. What am I missing?

And I didn't know there was a thread about Brown...I know there's one about the Mass. election, but it's about the Dems losing, not Brown. Am I missing something there, too?

Doesn't really matter; I'm still cynical, disaffected, and off to enjoy the rain. Politics sucks worse than ever today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 9:12 AM

:facepalm:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 10:19 AM

Quote:
I've heard on several occasions that the political parties leaderships are much more polarized, and tend to be more "pure" in their ideology, than the population in general. They only get folks elected because there just isn't anyone else to vote for, what with any House of Reps campaign costing millions, and running for Senate tens of millions. Public funding brings up the argument of limiting special interests' participation vs. allowing freedom of speech.

Sorry Geezer, just getting back to you on this. This goes in pretty well with HK's thread on "What the freakin' frak, corporate control now absolute." You've probably seen it, basically the supreme court ruled that corporate personhood must be respected when considering campaign contributions and advert air times. I can see the reasoning in the sense of the constitution, but I think it's also a sign of a flaw in the constitution, and has serious consequences. Money has always given some people more voice than others, to the point where I think those others have been drowned out at times. I don't think this is in the spirit of the line "All men are created equal," though considering things like the 3/5ths Compromise, I suppose Federal Law never really was about equality.

I'm not sure whether you're for or against the recognition of corporate personhood. I'm going to suspect that you are? But saying we leave the corporations out of this for now, do you feel the same way about the parties the rest of us do, that they no longer serve any useful purpose, wasting their time on things they ought to have better left alone and spending taxdollars on unnecessary projects?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 10:35 AM

Hey Frem, in that same thread by HK about the corporate takeover, Sig and Rue came up with what I think is a brilliant idea for a blindside.

What we do is we start small, somehow we put together some kind of internet-based reality show parody of the campaign trail, and we encourage people to "vote" for the candidates. All of whom are independent types, you know, would be populist. And initially, we make all of them jokes, so they're just funny to watch. People love that kind of thing.

Then once people are interested in participating in large numbers, we start getting a little serious, introducing populist candidates that could be actually viable, you know, if they actually had money. People will follow these candidates like they do their American Idol or whatnot. As a side-effect, this will segue way very usefully into grassroots campaigns on a large scale. But hopefully, because of the origins of such candidates, the powers that be won't take them seriously, that is until they start getting elected into office.

Then, when the powers that be start realizing this is a potential threat or a potential tool, we invite them into our house to compete, making them think that they're part of the process, except this has never been promoted by all the corporations they get their money from who make them look good. Suddenly they realize they don't have their usual backup. Oh no! Then we take both parties to town, after we've trapped them right where we want them.

And they'd never see it coming, because it was just a stupid reality show comedy/parody. Reality shows are what they invented to distract the public, they would never imagine that it could be used to FOCUS people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 11:56 AM

Frem

Thank's for your input on voting in third party candidates. I'm listening and learning. I am liking what I am hearing from you. I'm thinking of maybe switching to the Anarchist Party. :)

What do you think of Saul Alinsky ... Rules for Radicals? I ran across his work yesterday and am impressed.

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[2]

So yeah, I appreciate hearing from someone who's been working the system for years and throwing monkey wrenches every chance he gets. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:33 PM

We aren't a party, we are a PAR-TAY!

Us anarchists on this board are fairly peaceful, all considering, and not willing to throw everyone to the dogs just to get what we want. The people who don't care and blow stuff up aren't anarchists, they're jerks.

Working within the system can be frustrating, especially if you think it just doesn't work and kind of wish it were gone so people could go back to solving problems instead of mud-slinging at the other. But that doesn't mean it's not an option... If you play your cards right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hey Frem, in that same thread by HK about the corporate takeover, Sig and Rue came up with what I think is a brilliant idea for a blindside.

What we do is we start small, somehow we put together some kind of internet-based reality show parody of the campaign trail, and we encourage people to "vote" for the candidates. All of whom are independent types, you know, would be populist. And initially, we make all of them jokes, so they're just funny to watch. People love that kind of thing.

Then once people are interested in participating in large numbers, we start getting a little serious, introducing populist candidates that could be actually viable, you know, if they actually had money. People will follow these candidates like they do their American Idol or whatnot. As a side-effect, this will segue way very usefully into grassroots campaigns on a large scale. But hopefully, because of the origins of such candidates, the powers that be won't take them seriously, that is until they start getting elected into office.

Then, when the powers that be start realizing this is a potential threat or a potential tool, we invite them into our house to compete, making them think that they're part of the process, except this has never been promoted by all the corporations they get their money from who make them look good. Suddenly they realize they don't have their usual backup. Oh no! Then we take both parties to town, after we've trapped them right where we want them.

And they'd never see it coming, because it was just a stupid reality show comedy/parody. Reality shows are what they invented to distract the public, they would never imagine that it could be used to FOCUS people.

That can absolutely work, but likely for only ONE election cycle before it gets co-opted and taken over by the major parties. Which is no reason not to do it, of course. The major parties might be dinosaurs, but they're not that slow on the uptake. They're already trying to glom onto the bottled populism ("Popsi - the choice of a new degeneration!") of the tea party movement and make it their own, charging $500 a plate at fund-raisers, and paying speakers up to $100,000 per appearance, in what doesn't really appear very grass-roots at all anymore (if it ever really was).

So do it, run it, make an impact; just don't expect the two parties to roll over and die, or not to react or steal the idea. They've never met an idea so good they wouldn't steal it and call it their own. Of course, no idea was ever a good one until THEY had it, anyway...

I don't think it's *THE* answer, but I think it's one tiny thing that can help, and that's all we can ask for these days. Besides, if we don't have a 100% solution (one answer that fixes all the problems), a hundred 1% solutions will do. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:16 PM

I think it's an idea so wacky it has an interesting amount of potential, especially if you play wait-n-bait, cause Youtube will bow to corporate interests and start shitcanning the vids, which if you play it right, you can turn round into a massive PR coup of outrage, etc etc.

I don't work within the system though, the city council matter was a fluke, and I could never go public anyway cause I got WAY too much "blood on my hands" politically for anyone with a lick of sense to trust me (the locals had not a clue, to this day, that I was anything more than a local cabbie with a big mouth) and I don't *believe* in working within the system cause it's like expecting to win at three card monte.

You don't go to a card sharpers house, play on his table, by his rules, with his deck, and expect to come away anything but screwed, yes ?
And most folk don't even have it in em to cheat back cause they're TOO damn decent.

Me, I cheated from the very start, and just happened to be better AT it than they were, and as mentioned above, happen to be one of them "Stays Bought" types - which is also why my little security biz does so well.

The only folks who've had any success so far are the equivalent of political "hackers" exploiting weaknesses of the system, which gives an ironic turn to the phrase "viral marketing" doesn't it ?

But we're also dealing with a seriously conditioned populace trained to jump through the hoops, an I been workin THAT angle for thirty-some years, and only recently has the tide begin to turn - although in the end, when it does, it's gonna be a fuckin tsunami.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:29 PM

Frem

Ok, I get it. You work 'around' the system and not 'in' it. gotcha.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:32 PM

Byte

Goin' to a Par-tay! Going to play some cards. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:51 PM

Byte

If you decide to go ahead and make a video and need some help, my son might be able to help you. He is in the Salt Lake area right now and has worked in the film industry for years. Presently unemployed.
He needs something to do with his downtime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 4:36 PM

Interesting. Well, this idea needs considerably more planning is the thing. We need to find a broad pool of slightly nutty applicants at first. We have to tend towards improvisational comedians, because if we start out with people who actually want to run but ruin their chances for them, that'll be bad publicity. A switchover from comedians to earnest candidates will come when we've built up interest.

But apart from ideas about how not to shoot ourselves in the foot with this, I know absolutely nothing about film and television related production.

I know someone who does too though, maybe I can float the idea, and then... Maybe. My brother was in film school before he switched over to law school, but more importantly, he is actually in Manhattan right now going to college. Plenty of actors on and off broadway, at the theatre school, I mean, hell, the Apollo is in Harlem. Float the idea, see if it spreads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:48 PM