I watched the 1974 Sci Fi movie "Rollerball" which predicted that a few major corporations controlling vital resources ruled the world.
Like the Ancient Romans the movie has a gladitoral like game called Rollerball to entertain the Roman "Plebs" to distract them from the control of the corporations.
Ironic how movies like this one, Soylent Green & the unoffical Peak Oil movie the Mad Max guessed our time so well.
jumpnjflash: exactly. But virtually the entire Congress is to blame as well, because they are all paid off by the huge insurance lobby and big pharma.
In a recent speech Obama said that if he were starting a health care system from scratch that the single payer system would be the best. He said that the way things are now though that ""that would be too disruptive". Disruptive??? yeah to the insurance companies. So since Oboma don't have what it takes to do what is right for the American people the insurance companies win again and the $400 billion these companies take out of the system each year cannot be used to expand care to everyone.
As far as unions go-we ought to make up some fancy name-' workers coming out day'-or something like that.
You could call all your fellow workers and tell them you are starting a 'workers coming out day'-just make sure your boss doesn't know because he might escort you out of the building by trying to pull you out by pulling on your ear-in which case you should sue him for assulting your ear!
I will start with the last thing you said first; --I think we should have a single payer supplemental. If you are rich or upper middleclass you should be able to afford most medical bills.
The middleclass should be able to aford to pay about half of their medical bills.
The poor maybe 0-25%, depending on income, should go toward a medical bill,-they could do all that and keep the medicare that we already pay and just jack it up a little to take on these new costs!
@kjack5: I think, I understand what you are getting at. Only, I believe that single payer should be across the board for ALL basic and catastrophic coverage. You've got to have enough money in the system for this work. Private insurance, on the other hand, COULD function as supplemental coverage for anything ELECTIVE, such as cosmetic surgery.
unions are only good if it's voluntary, my union is a sham, I'm last in line for everything because I'm the last hired and it's seniority first, then they can't fire incompetent workers, so they get the promotions and raises before me, plus the benefits suck anyways. I work twice as hard as everybody else, but get paid half as much as the slackers and time-milkers because they've been there longer. and if they actually do lay off people, last hired=first fired.
A unions mission is to use force, violence, and coercion to distort what otherwise be a voluntary mutually beneficial relationship. It should not be surprising that seeking to employ force in the relationship with your employer will sour that relationship.
To give unions legal protection within the workplace is the equivalent of exonerating husbands who practice habitual rape within marriage with divorce applications from the wife denied and applications from the husband given freely.
@stratvic: I'm not sure if we are living on the same planet, but your analogy is utterly laughable! When was the last time that ANY union in this country has employed VIOLENCE against their employers? Historically speaking it's exactly the other way around, because union advocates are MURDERED to this very day in many countries. The relationship between employers + employees is not exactly mutually beneficial, as long the employer has ALL the power. Please read up on labor movements, ok?
Violence is wrought in many forms. Property damage, damages incurred in breaches of contract, physical obstruction are all forms of violence. Where do you think the term "spanner in the works" came from? The history of unions is for violence from both sides as violence is usually met with violence.
The employer does not have "ALL"the power. Employees can leave their employment at any time for better opportunities, that is the ultimate power in any relationship.
@stratvic: about employers NOT having all the power, that may be true in some instances, but not when it comes to big industries. What about the outsourcing of manufacturing + IT to low wage countries? Are employees supposed to move to India/China to find better opportunities? This is a global race to the bottom. Plant closures (because cheaper labor can be found overseas) mean entire communities are uprooted. Ask the people of Flint, Michigan. You need to look at the global trends.
@stratvic: once you destroy the middle class in ANY county, then you destroy it's consumer base along with it. Not to mention, that small employers are being crushed by the multinationals, because they simply cannot compete with them.
Only under the most extreme and rare cases in a one company remote town would they have a lot of power. But people can move or start their own business.
What do you have against Indians and Chinese? Don't they deserve good jobs if they are equally capable? Shouldn't we embrace jobs going to the poorest and most in need.
The middle class will be no more likely destroyed by employing efficient labour than employing efficient grain harvesters.
josh brackelsberg for house of reps in arizona! that's me! i'll vote it in!!! infiltrate the republicans!!!! we don't have time to buid up the libertarians! take over the dead republican party! this is our time!!! push that! think about it! do it! i'll try to get trent franks out in arizona, please support me and ron paul, and peter schiff!
Sorry, you're not going to be able to murder your way out of our problems. You desire to kill people indicates serious mental problems on your part, not real solutions to our problems. Please check your soul; there's something very wrong with you.
Something wrong with Shaq's soul? No. I'd argue he's just voicing his/her frustration on this way. But on one point Shaq's right - the power needs to be taken away from the corporations and given back to the people at large. Until that point there's not going to be such a thing as democracy, just a puppet show the masks the truth.
* the power needs to be taken away from the corporations and given back to the people at large. Until that point there's not going to be such a thing as democracy, just a puppet show the masks the truth. *
I agree entirely, but let's see if we can avoid making excuses for people who are advocating murder and treason. If you want to relegate your political movement to obscurity, by all means let it be taken over by people who are advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
* So I'm guessing you would have sided with the loyalists during the American Revolution? *
Are you seriously suggesting that unless I want to start a violent revolution today, I would have been opposed the American Revolution? You think the American Revolution automatically justifies all furture political murder and treason?
Here's a question for you: Would you have sided with the Confederates during the Civil War? Since you're so big on treason, after all.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that your arguments are similar to those of the Tories in the lead up to the Declaration of Independence and during the American Revolution. At no point in my post did I express support for the violent overthrow of the government. Rather, I posed a question.
What makes you think I would support a slave economy? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't view violent revolution as inherently evil must also view the slave based cotton industry of the South positively?
* What makes you think I would support a slave economy? *
I was fairly sure you would NOT support a slave economy, but I asked the question because I thought it highlighted the logical flaw in any attempt to equate all violent revolution with the American Revolution. I would have supported the American Revolution, but it does not follow that I would support any other revolution. On this point I am glad we are in full agreement. (Or appear to be.)
Your comments appear to imply that violent revolutions, by their very nature, are gravely evil: "Sorry, you're not going to be able to murder your way out of our problems. You desire to kill people indicates serious mental problems on your part." Why exactly is the American Revolution the singular exception to what you seem to regard as a rule?
* Your comments appear to imply that violent revolutions, by their very nature, are gravely evil *
I can't find anything in the text of my comments that would indicate I was making this sweeping point. Rather, it's an inference you took but I did not intend. I was specifically responding to one poster's suggestion that "we need a civil war" now, to deal with our current problems. Sadly for him, murder is not going to be part of the solution.
So violent revolution=murder? Or, only violent revolution now=murder? So a revolution earlier or later wouldn't have been murderous? Or do you think that the "murder" in the American Revolution was good "murder" as opposed to the bad "murder" that would occur now?
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich
* Why exactly is the American Revolution the singular exception to what you seem to regard as a rule? *
I never said the American Revolution was the sole exception to the rule, nor did I even say there was any such rule. I was referring to one poster's suggestion that "we need a civil war" now, to deal with current problems.
I think I understand now. I reread your post: "Okay - thanks. I'm not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you're American, you're a traitor. If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George."
I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad.
* I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. *
Again, you're drawing inferences. I never "only" revolution against "the Crown" was good. I can imagine other times and places where violent rebellion might be called for. But this isn't one of them.
* Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad. *
Yes, I do disagree. There is no sin in betraying a government that has already betrayed us, and continues to do so. I have no loyalty to the government whatsoever.
The other problem of course is that this goes beyond America into every nook and cranny of the world. You can trace a lot of ills in this world back to simple human greed, which corporations are an extension of, and which now seems to infest must of the western world.
In short it needs to be a world revolution. If you just focus on one country then the problem will just move else where to nations more then accommodating.
To me it feels more like a fight for what's decent about our race.
* I'm suggesting that your arguments are similar to those of the Tories in the lead up to the Declaration of Independence and during the American Revolution *
It sounds like you've watched HBO's John Adams mini-series recently. ;-)
Okay, let's examine your argument. How are my arguments similar to those of the Tories? I oppose the violent overthrow of the US government. Tories opposed the violent overthrow of British rule in the colonies.
* I was referring primarily to your references to "treason." *
Okay - thanks. I'm not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you're American, you're a traitor.
If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George.
Maybe today's far-right extremists should embrace the word "traitor" and stop calling themselves "patriots."
* The context in which you used the term certainly was not positive. You coupled it with "murder" both times. *
Yes, that's right: I think people who are advocating murder and treason today are borderline criminal, and should be condemned. My question was what would give you the OPPOSITE impression, per your equestion, "So I was in error by viewing your mentions of "treason" as having negative connotations?"
Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances.
* Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances. *
But when this subject was raised, I was not talking about treason in the abstract. I was responding tos someone who is advocating civil war in America, today. I think that kind of rhetoric is uncalled for, and strongly oppose the sentiment that we need a civil war, should murder our leaders, or should become traitors to our nation. How about you?
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer primarily to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich?
ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials.
* I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view ... as naive. *
What's your third way, then? What's less naive than working within the parties, and less misguided than violence? I'd love to hear your solution to the problem.
In my view, our tools for effecting change are imperfect and limited, and progress is almost always painfully slow. How many decades did Susan B. Anthony fight for women's suffrage? Did she reach her goal by the time she died at age 89?
That's not a 3rd way. That's a political platform. A 3rd way has to be mutually exclusive to the other two "ways": political revolution or working within the framework of our political system. Listing your political platform is not mutually exclusive to either of these approaches.
So, I would still like to hear your answer to the question: What's your 3rd way? What's your alternative to war or working within our system?
Everything on there is what I am actively working for, every single day. Currently I am trying to convince people within unions to either push reforms within their unions or build new ones, depending on the situation. I'm also encouraging people outside of unions to create them, and have tried multiple times to get one started myself.
You don't have to like or agree with the answer, but you can't deny that I am actively working towards the goals which I listed. It is a real "third way" regardless of your opinion.
* Everything on there is what I am actively working for, *
Well, best of luck to you, and good luck with your efforts. Interesting discussion, but I'm way overdue for bed. I'll try to catch up with you after I get home from work tomorrow evening. Cheers and regards.
* ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials. *
Yes, he did. When you advocate civil war, you are inherently advocating murder. War means death. If you advocate war, you are advocating murder. While I suppose he might want the kind of civil war that would be violent only towards the American people and not their leaders, such an interpretation really streches credulity.
So, everyone who kills in war, regardless of the cause, is a murderer? Again I'll ask you, what makes the American revolution different? That was good "murder"? Murder can be good?
You're guessing. Nothing in his posts suggests that he wishes to kill the members of our government, who very obviously would not be active participants within the war (anymore than they are within the Iraq or Afghan wars).
As you know I advocated voting 3rd party because I thought it was a good way to send a message to the two major parties that people were losing confidence in it. I don't fault people for voting for Obama because as I have stated there would be no major shifts in policy but McCain was more likely to be have a harder line stance against Iran. That has turned out to be true. If voting for the lesser of two evils does not change much of anything it makes sense to vote 3rd party. Send a message.
* If voting for the lesser of two evils does not change much of anything it makes sense to vote 3rd party. Send a message. *
If your premise is true, then I agree 100%. For this reason I voted for Nader in 1996. (Plus, Clinton was a lock in Michigan in '96.) But I don't think your premise really is true in presidential politics.
Clearly the two parties are cut from the same corporate cloth, but there are important differences, none more so than the Supreme Court.
* Clearly the two parties are cut from the same corporate cloth, but there are important differences *
Or, for that matter, with respect to the very labor issues Ella is discussion, e.g., EFCA. There are a few dozen Democratic Senators and a several score Democratic Representatives who will vote for this imporatant legislation. How many Republicans will vote for it? Probably zero. Maybe 1.
The problem isn't "the Democrats," but the blue dogs. Or as Maddow calls them, "conservadems."
Politicians make great speeches to empty rooms that you see on CSPAN. Does that translate into votes? I wish I had a buck for every speech a democrat made against the FISA legislation but it got passed did it not? Are you going to accept the excuse that you always get from them that the other party sabotaged the legislation or look at the reality of what really happened?
* Are you going to accept the excuse that you always get from them that the other party sabotaged the legislation or look at the reality of what really happened? *
I'm totally with you on FISA. The Democrats are far from perfect, and I've never said anything to the contrary. But they are clearly and decisively better than Republicans. That's just a fact.
Problems I had with Bush. Destroying the value of our currency by running huge budget deficits. Bankrupting our country with un winnable wars he was not willing to raise taxes to fund and put it on a credit card in my children's name. Please tell me how democrats are better. It is stupid for countries to loan us money when inflation makes the dollars we pay them back with less more than the dollars they loaned us. What is the next step? Monetizing the debt. How well has that worked in history?
I am not unaware that the president can support supreme court nominees that does not change the fact that as long as people are convinced that the only option is to vote for the lesser of two evils this will continue to be a problem,. The truth is the person with the most votes wins. If people voted their conscience without being brainwashed by the media that there are only two choices then we could end up with real change and nothing will change much until people realize that.
Well, fine, but don't hold your breath waiting for a 3rd party to win in our two party system. It won't happen. If waiting for a 3rd party to win is our only political strategy, we're doomed. If you're anywhere on the left, your only hope is to work within the Democratic Party. If you're on the right, your only hope is the Republicans.
Note: I'm not saying these are good options or that I'm happy about it, but we have to deal with reality.
Reality seems to be what mainstream media convinces people it is.You elected the most do nothing congress in history because they promised you change. You elected a president that promised you change and got none. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. How many more times are you willing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?
exactly, most don't realize that Perot was the reason Clinton tried to balance the budget. had to cut that deficit to make it look good. too bad Rumsfeld basically spilled the beans on 9/10/01
Comment removed
valhala56 2 years ago
I watched the 1974 Sci Fi movie "Rollerball" which predicted that a few major corporations controlling vital resources ruled the world.
Like the Ancient Romans the movie has a gladitoral like game called Rollerball to entertain the Roman "Plebs" to distract them from the control of the corporations.
Ironic how movies like this one, Soylent Green & the unoffical Peak Oil movie the Mad Max guessed our time so well.
valhala56 2 years ago
jumpnjflash: exactly. But virtually the entire Congress is to blame as well, because they are all paid off by the huge insurance lobby and big pharma.
55ella2007k 2 years ago
In a recent speech Obama said that if he were starting a health care system from scratch that the single payer system would be the best. He said that the way things are now though that ""that would be too disruptive". Disruptive??? yeah to the insurance companies. So since Oboma don't have what it takes to do what is right for the American people the insurance companies win again and the $400 billion these companies take out of the system each year cannot be used to expand care to everyone.
jumpnjflash 2 years ago 2
As far as unions go-we ought to make up some fancy name-' workers coming out day'-or something like that.
You could call all your fellow workers and tell them you are starting a 'workers coming out day'-just make sure your boss doesn't know because he might escort you out of the building by trying to pull you out by pulling on your ear-in which case you should sue him for assulting your ear!
kjack5 2 years ago
I will start with the last thing you said first; --I think we should have a single payer supplemental. If you are rich or upper middleclass you should be able to afford most medical bills.
The middleclass should be able to aford to pay about half of their medical bills.
The poor maybe 0-25%, depending on income, should go toward a medical bill,-they could do all that and keep the medicare that we already pay and just jack it up a little to take on these new costs!
kjack5 2 years ago
@kjack5: I think, I understand what you are getting at. Only, I believe that single payer should be across the board for ALL basic and catastrophic coverage. You've got to have enough money in the system for this work. Private insurance, on the other hand, COULD function as supplemental coverage for anything ELECTIVE, such as cosmetic surgery.
55ella2007k 2 years ago
unions are only good if it's voluntary, my union is a sham, I'm last in line for everything because I'm the last hired and it's seniority first, then they can't fire incompetent workers, so they get the promotions and raises before me, plus the benefits suck anyways. I work twice as hard as everybody else, but get paid half as much as the slackers and time-milkers because they've been there longer. and if they actually do lay off people, last hired=first fired.
iTellYouNoLie 2 years ago
A unions mission is to use force, violence, and coercion to distort what otherwise be a voluntary mutually beneficial relationship. It should not be surprising that seeking to employ force in the relationship with your employer will sour that relationship.
To give unions legal protection within the workplace is the equivalent of exonerating husbands who practice habitual rape within marriage with divorce applications from the wife denied and applications from the husband given freely.
stratvic 2 years ago
@stratvic: I'm not sure if we are living on the same planet, but your analogy is utterly laughable! When was the last time that ANY union in this country has employed VIOLENCE against their employers? Historically speaking it's exactly the other way around, because union advocates are MURDERED to this very day in many countries. The relationship between employers + employees is not exactly mutually beneficial, as long the employer has ALL the power. Please read up on labor movements, ok?
55ella2007k 2 years ago
Violence is wrought in many forms. Property damage, damages incurred in breaches of contract, physical obstruction are all forms of violence. Where do you think the term "spanner in the works" came from? The history of unions is for violence from both sides as violence is usually met with violence.
The employer does not have "ALL"the power. Employees can leave their employment at any time for better opportunities, that is the ultimate power in any relationship.
stratvic 2 years ago
@stratvic: about employers NOT having all the power, that may be true in some instances, but not when it comes to big industries. What about the outsourcing of manufacturing + IT to low wage countries? Are employees supposed to move to India/China to find better opportunities? This is a global race to the bottom. Plant closures (because cheaper labor can be found overseas) mean entire communities are uprooted. Ask the people of Flint, Michigan. You need to look at the global trends.
55ella2007k 2 years ago
@stratvic: once you destroy the middle class in ANY county, then you destroy it's consumer base along with it. Not to mention, that small employers are being crushed by the multinationals, because they simply cannot compete with them.
55ella2007k 2 years ago
Only under the most extreme and rare cases in a one company remote town would they have a lot of power. But people can move or start their own business.
What do you have against Indians and Chinese? Don't they deserve good jobs if they are equally capable? Shouldn't we embrace jobs going to the poorest and most in need.
The middle class will be no more likely destroyed by employing efficient labour than employing efficient grain harvesters.
Small employers are crushed by govt regulation.
stratvic 2 years ago
josh brackelsberg for house of reps in arizona! that's me! i'll vote it in!!! infiltrate the republicans!!!! we don't have time to buid up the libertarians! take over the dead republican party! this is our time!!! push that! think about it! do it! i'll try to get trent franks out in arizona, please support me and ron paul, and peter schiff!
qweqqweqbt 2 years ago
* Sigh.. we need a civil war *
Sorry, you're not going to be able to murder your way out of our problems. You desire to kill people indicates serious mental problems on your part, not real solutions to our problems. Please check your soul; there's something very wrong with you.
Z200a 2 years ago
Something wrong with Shaq's soul? No. I'd argue he's just voicing his/her frustration on this way. But on one point Shaq's right - the power needs to be taken away from the corporations and given back to the people at large. Until that point there's not going to be such a thing as democracy, just a puppet show the masks the truth.
ScreamingTc 2 years ago
* the power needs to be taken away from the corporations and given back to the people at large. Until that point there's not going to be such a thing as democracy, just a puppet show the masks the truth. *
I agree entirely, but let's see if we can avoid making excuses for people who are advocating murder and treason. If you want to relegate your political movement to obscurity, by all means let it be taken over by people who are advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
Z200a 2 years ago
So I'm guessing you would have sided with the loyalists during the American Revolution?
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* So I'm guessing you would have sided with the loyalists during the American Revolution? *
Are you seriously suggesting that unless I want to start a violent revolution today, I would have been opposed the American Revolution? You think the American Revolution automatically justifies all furture political murder and treason?
Here's a question for you: Would you have sided with the Confederates during the Civil War? Since you're so big on treason, after all.
Z200a 2 years ago
Not at all. I'm suggesting that your arguments are similar to those of the Tories in the lead up to the Declaration of Independence and during the American Revolution. At no point in my post did I express support for the violent overthrow of the government. Rather, I posed a question.
What makes you think I would support a slave economy? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't view violent revolution as inherently evil must also view the slave based cotton industry of the South positively?
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* What makes you think I would support a slave economy? *
I was fairly sure you would NOT support a slave economy, but I asked the question because I thought it highlighted the logical flaw in any attempt to equate all violent revolution with the American Revolution. I would have supported the American Revolution, but it does not follow that I would support any other revolution. On this point I am glad we are in full agreement. (Or appear to be.)
Z200a 2 years ago
Your comments appear to imply that violent revolutions, by their very nature, are gravely evil: "Sorry, you're not going to be able to murder your way out of our problems. You desire to kill people indicates serious mental problems on your part." Why exactly is the American Revolution the singular exception to what you seem to regard as a rule?
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* Your comments appear to imply that violent revolutions, by their very nature, are gravely evil *
I can't find anything in the text of my comments that would indicate I was making this sweeping point. Rather, it's an inference you took but I did not intend. I was specifically responding to one poster's suggestion that "we need a civil war" now, to deal with our current problems. Sadly for him, murder is not going to be part of the solution.
Z200a 2 years ago
So violent revolution=murder? Or, only violent revolution now=murder? So a revolution earlier or later wouldn't have been murderous? Or do you think that the "murder" in the American Revolution was good "murder" as opposed to the bad "murder" that would occur now?
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* Why exactly is the American Revolution the singular exception to what you seem to regard as a rule? *
I never said the American Revolution was the sole exception to the rule, nor did I even say there was any such rule. I was referring to one poster's suggestion that "we need a civil war" now, to deal with current problems.
Z200a 2 years ago
I think I understand now. I reread your post: "Okay - thanks. I'm not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you're American, you're a traitor. If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George."
I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. *
Again, you're drawing inferences. I never "only" revolution against "the Crown" was good. I can imagine other times and places where violent rebellion might be called for. But this isn't one of them.
* Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad. *
Hell yes it is. I'm sorry you don't agree.
Z200a 2 years ago
Yes, I do disagree. There is no sin in betraying a government that has already betrayed us, and continues to do so. I have no loyalty to the government whatsoever.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
The other problem of course is that this goes beyond America into every nook and cranny of the world. You can trace a lot of ills in this world back to simple human greed, which corporations are an extension of, and which now seems to infest must of the western world.
In short it needs to be a world revolution. If you just focus on one country then the problem will just move else where to nations more then accommodating.
To me it feels more like a fight for what's decent about our race.
ScreamingTc 2 years ago
* I'm suggesting that your arguments are similar to those of the Tories in the lead up to the Declaration of Independence and during the American Revolution *
It sounds like you've watched HBO's John Adams mini-series recently. ;-)
Okay, let's examine your argument. How are my arguments similar to those of the Tories? I oppose the violent overthrow of the US government. Tories opposed the violent overthrow of British rule in the colonies.
If that's your similarity, I'll plead guilty.
Z200a 2 years ago
I was referring primarily to your references to "treason."
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* I was referring primarily to your references to "treason." *
Okay - thanks. I'm not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you're American, you're a traitor.
If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George.
Maybe today's far-right extremists should embrace the word "traitor" and stop calling themselves "patriots."
Z200a 2 years ago
So I was in error by viewing your mentions of "treason" as having negative connotations?
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* So I was in error by viewing your mentions of "treason" as having negative connotations? *
What have I said that would give you this idea?
I'm going to bed now, but i will respond to your response, if you post one, tomorrow.
Cheers.
Z200a 2 years ago
The context in which you used the term certainly was not positive. You coupled it with "murder" both times.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
Comment removed
Z200a 2 years ago
* The context in which you used the term certainly was not positive. You coupled it with "murder" both times. *
Yes, that's right: I think people who are advocating murder and treason today are borderline criminal, and should be condemned. My question was what would give you the OPPOSITE impression, per your equestion, "So I was in error by viewing your mentions of "treason" as having negative connotations?"
Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances.
Z200a 2 years ago
* Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances. *
But when this subject was raised, I was not talking about treason in the abstract. I was responding tos someone who is advocating civil war in America, today. I think that kind of rhetoric is uncalled for, and strongly oppose the sentiment that we need a civil war, should murder our leaders, or should become traitors to our nation. How about you?
Z200a 2 years ago
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer primarily to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich?
ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view ... as naive. *
What's your third way, then? What's less naive than working within the parties, and less misguided than violence? I'd love to hear your solution to the problem.
In my view, our tools for effecting change are imperfect and limited, and progress is almost always painfully slow. How many decades did Susan B. Anthony fight for women's suffrage? Did she reach her goal by the time she died at age 89?
Z200a 2 years ago
* she died at age 89 *
Apologies for the typo. Susan B. Anthony died at 86.
Z200a 2 years ago
It's a lazy answer, I know, but I describe my third way in the "Interests and Hobbies" section of my channel profile.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* I describe my third way...my channel profile *
That's not a 3rd way. That's a political platform. A 3rd way has to be mutually exclusive to the other two "ways": political revolution or working within the framework of our political system. Listing your political platform is not mutually exclusive to either of these approaches.
So, I would still like to hear your answer to the question: What's your 3rd way? What's your alternative to war or working within our system?
Z200a 2 years ago
Everything on there is what I am actively working for, every single day. Currently I am trying to convince people within unions to either push reforms within their unions or build new ones, depending on the situation. I'm also encouraging people outside of unions to create them, and have tried multiple times to get one started myself.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
You don't have to like or agree with the answer, but you can't deny that I am actively working towards the goals which I listed. It is a real "third way" regardless of your opinion.
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
* Everything on there is what I am actively working for, *
Well, best of luck to you, and good luck with your efforts. Interesting discussion, but I'm way overdue for bed. I'll try to catch up with you after I get home from work tomorrow evening. Cheers and regards.
Z200a 2 years ago
It's been an interesting discussion, and I've enjoyed it. Sleep well :-)
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
My third way is to call Z200a out for being a fagget ass crybaby, who needs to get off of YT and reattatch it's self to it's mother's tit
0neGreatAmericanMom 2 years ago
* ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials. *
Yes, he did. When you advocate civil war, you are inherently advocating murder. War means death. If you advocate war, you are advocating murder. While I suppose he might want the kind of civil war that would be violent only towards the American people and not their leaders, such an interpretation really streches credulity.
Z200a 2 years ago
So, everyone who kills in war, regardless of the cause, is a murderer? Again I'll ask you, what makes the American revolution different? That was good "murder"? Murder can be good?
You're guessing. Nothing in his posts suggests that he wishes to kill the members of our government, who very obviously would not be active participants within the war (anymore than they are within the Iraq or Afghan wars).
CitizenCindy 2 years ago
get the government out of the market-place and support Ron Paul's bill to audit the fed
wcarlpdrysdale 2 years ago 2
As you know I advocated voting 3rd party because I thought it was a good way to send a message to the two major parties that people were losing confidence in it. I don't fault people for voting for Obama because as I have stated there would be no major shifts in policy but McCain was more likely to be have a harder line stance against Iran. That has turned out to be true. If voting for the lesser of two evils does not change much of anything it makes sense to vote 3rd party. Send a message.
PASMdude 2 years ago
* If voting for the lesser of two evils does not change much of anything it makes sense to vote 3rd party. Send a message. *
If your premise is true, then I agree 100%. For this reason I voted for Nader in 1996. (Plus, Clinton was a lock in Michigan in '96.) But I don't think your premise really is true in presidential politics.
Clearly the two parties are cut from the same corporate cloth, but there are important differences, none more so than the Supreme Court.
Z200a 2 years ago
* Clearly the two parties are cut from the same corporate cloth, but there are important differences *
Or, for that matter, with respect to the very labor issues Ella is discussion, e.g., EFCA. There are a few dozen Democratic Senators and a several score Democratic Representatives who will vote for this imporatant legislation. How many Republicans will vote for it? Probably zero. Maybe 1.
The problem isn't "the Democrats," but the blue dogs. Or as Maddow calls them, "conservadems."
Z200a 2 years ago
Politicians make great speeches to empty rooms that you see on CSPAN. Does that translate into votes? I wish I had a buck for every speech a democrat made against the FISA legislation but it got passed did it not? Are you going to accept the excuse that you always get from them that the other party sabotaged the legislation or look at the reality of what really happened?
PASMdude 2 years ago
* Are you going to accept the excuse that you always get from them that the other party sabotaged the legislation or look at the reality of what really happened? *
I'm totally with you on FISA. The Democrats are far from perfect, and I've never said anything to the contrary. But they are clearly and decisively better than Republicans. That's just a fact.
Z200a 2 years ago
Problems I had with Bush. Destroying the value of our currency by running huge budget deficits. Bankrupting our country with un winnable wars he was not willing to raise taxes to fund and put it on a credit card in my children's name. Please tell me how democrats are better. It is stupid for countries to loan us money when inflation makes the dollars we pay them back with less more than the dollars they loaned us. What is the next step? Monetizing the debt. How well has that worked in history?
PASMdude 2 years ago
I am not unaware that the president can support supreme court nominees that does not change the fact that as long as people are convinced that the only option is to vote for the lesser of two evils this will continue to be a problem,. The truth is the person with the most votes wins. If people voted their conscience without being brainwashed by the media that there are only two choices then we could end up with real change and nothing will change much until people realize that.
PASMdude 2 years ago
Well, fine, but don't hold your breath waiting for a 3rd party to win in our two party system. It won't happen. If waiting for a 3rd party to win is our only political strategy, we're doomed. If you're anywhere on the left, your only hope is to work within the Democratic Party. If you're on the right, your only hope is the Republicans.
Note: I'm not saying these are good options or that I'm happy about it, but we have to deal with reality.
Z200a 2 years ago
Reality seems to be what mainstream media convinces people it is.You elected the most do nothing congress in history because they promised you change. You elected a president that promised you change and got none. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. How many more times are you willing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?
PASMdude 2 years ago
exactly, most don't realize that Perot was the reason Clinton tried to balance the budget. had to cut that deficit to make it look good. too bad Rumsfeld basically spilled the beans on 9/10/01
watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
iTellYouNoLie 2 years ago