Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The "Both Parties Are the Same"/"It's A Vibrant Democracy" Contradiction; More Nonsense Put Out By the MS Media
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 1:37:33 PM5/6/12
to
As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
Bret Cahill
media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 2:30:46 PM5/6/12
to
The reason for the "both parties are the same" lie is to reduce
political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
powerless..
The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
public satisfied and not seek change.
political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
powerless..
The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
public satisfied and not seek change.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
May 6, 2012, 3:15:51 PM5/6/12
to
Read this. Buy the book.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/its-even-worse-than-it-looks-how-the-american-constitutional-system-collided-with-the-new-politics-of-extremism-by-thomas-e-mann-and-norman-j-ornstein/2012/04/30/gIQA2ohKsT_print.html
‘It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System
Collided With The New Politics of Extremism’ by Thomas E. Mann and
Norman J. Ornstein
By Robert G. Kaiser, Published: April 30
Reading this book is a little like quaffing a double espresso on an
empty stomach — it’s a jolt. For this reader it was a welcome jolt.
Others will find it less palatable.
Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein have been Washington fixtures
for three decades. They are two of the brightest, best informed and
most scholarly students of our politics. They started out together as
graduate students of political science at the University of Michigan,
and decades ago took up residence at the Brookings Institution (Mann)
and the American Enterprise Institute (Ornstein). Both have cultivated
Democratic and Republican senators and House members to help them
figure out the workings of the legislative branch. They acknowledge
holding liberal views themselves, but throughout their careers they
have tried to uphold a scholarly, non-partisan standard. Republicans
once took them as seriously as Democrats did.
Six years ago they published a fine book on the problems of Congress,
“The Broken Branch.” Among its many admirers was Newt Gingrich, the
former speaker of the House, who gave it an enthusiastic “blurb” for
the book’s back cover: “The Broken Branch is a serious step toward
strengthening the Congress.”
That book was sharply critical of then-Speaker Dennis Hastert and
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for running the House with minimal
regard for “regular order”— the traditional, bi-partisan way of doing
business by the rule book that Mann and Ornstein revere — and instead
putting political advantage ahead of careful legislating. Gingrich
praised their book despite its critical assessment of his fellow
Republicans.
Now Mann and Ornstein have decided that the time has come to abandon
the evenhandedness still fashionable among political journalists (as
opposed to the partisan talking heads and bloggers now so popular).
The blunt result will be invigorating for some readers, and
infuriating for others.
Their principal conclusion is unequivocal: Today’s Republicans in
Congress behave like a parliamentary party in a British-style
parliament, a winner-take-all system. But a parliamentary party —
“ideologically polarized, internally unified, vehemently oppositional”
— doesn’t work in a “separation-of-powers system that makes it
extremely difficult for majorities to work their will.”
These Republicans “have become more loyal to party than to country,”
the authors write, so “the political system has become grievously
hobbled at a time when the country faces unusually serious problems
and grave threats. . . . The country is squandering its economic
future and putting itself at risk because of an inability to govern
effectively.”
Today’s Republican Party has little in common even with Ronald
Reagan’s GOP, or with earlier versions that believed in government.
Instead it has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme;
contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime;
scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of
facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its
political opposition . . . all but declaring war on the government.”
Mann and Ornstein consider “the debt ceiling fiasco” of last summer
proof of these accusations. The idea of deliberately jeopardizing the
credit rating of the United States by toying with a purposeful default
on the country’s debt was a carefully planned strategy, they note —
the brainchild of Eric Cantor of Virginia, today’s majority leader of
the House.
After Republicans elected 87 new members in 2010 and took control of
the House, their nominal leader, John Boehner, clearly recognized that
the debt ceiling would have to be raised to keep the government
operating. Unlike Cantor and those new members, Boehner remembered the
political damage done in 1995 when Gingrich forced a shutdown of the
federal government in a spending dispute with Bill Clinton, probably
assuring Clinton’s 1996 reelection.
Mann and Ornstein quote Boehner from late 2010: “We’re going to have
to deal with [the debt ceiling] as adults. Whether we like it or not,
the federal government has obligations, and we have obligations on our
part.” Cantor disagreed. When the new Republican House majority
convened at a Baltimore retreat in January, 2011, “Cantor implored
them to use the coming debt limit vote as their golden opportunity.”
They quote Cantor in a story in The Post that revealed this episode:
“I’m urging you [Republican House members] to look at a potential
increase in the debt limit as a leverage moment when . . . President
Obama will have to deal with us” and accept deep spending cuts.
The showdown soon arrived. After weeks of anxious uncertainty, Senate
Republicans blinked. Their leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
acknowledged that deliberately putting the GOP in the position of
being blamed for a national default was a bad idea — not because of
the economic consequences, but the political ones. Allowing Obama to
blame the Republicans for forcing the country into default, McConnell
acknowledged, “is very bad positioning going into elections.”
Precariously, a deal was struck. President Obama agreed to make $38
billion in cuts to the current federal budget. In return Republicans
agreed to raise the debt ceiling enough to put off another fight on
the issue until after the 2012 elections. Well, some Republicans
agreed. Sixty-six Republicans in the House voted no; only Democratic
support saved the deal and prevented default.
Those of us who follow the Washington circus may have forgotten (I
had) that McConnell has already promised to repeat this drama early
next year, when the debt ceiling will have to be raised again. Mann
and Ornstein remind us that McConnell told Fox News, “We’ll be doing
it all over” in 2013.
It is this willingness to put perceived political advantage ahead of
good government that persuades the authors that we are living in a
novel time that is “even worse than it looks.” They acknowledge that
many of its features are not new, but all of them — from partisan
warfare to the impact of money on our politics — seem worse than at
any time in a century or more. Well-established, negative trends in
our politics have “passed a critical point, leading to something far
more troubling than we have ever seen.”
In recounting the history of how we got here, Mann and Ornstein
reserve a special place of dishonor for their one-time admirer,
Gingrich. His eagerness “to paint . . . his own institution [when
Democrats controlled it] as elitist, corrupt and arrogant . . .
undermined basic public trust in Congress and government. . . . His
attacks on partisan adversaries in the White House and Congress
created a norm in which colleagues with different views became mortal
enemies. . . . He helped invent the modern permanent campaign,
allowing electoral goals to dominate policy ones. . . . One has to
look back to Gingrich as the singular political figure who set the
tone that followed.” So no Gingrich blurb this time.
Mann and Ornstein rightly blame the news media for doing a mediocre
job covering the most important political story of the last three
decades: the transformation of the Republican Party. They are critical
of the conventions of mainstream journalism that lead to the
evenhandedness they have now abandoned themselves. They see a
“reflexive tendency of many in the mainstream press to use false
equivalence to explain outcomes,”when Republican obstructionism and
Republican rejection of science and basic facts have no Democratic
equivalents. It’s much easier to write stories “that convey an
impression that the two sides are equally implicated.”
The authors emphasize the deterioration of the American political
culture, corrupted by money and embittered by partisanship, affecting
not just Congress but also, they argue persuasively, the Supreme
Court. This spoiled culture has encouraged the cynicism of voters, now
a serious impediment to political reforms. Mann and Ornstein write at
length about both bad and good ideas for improving the situation in
four long chapters that are less passionate and a lot wonkier than
their more than 100-page indictment of the Republicans, which they
know is going to create a marketing problem for this book.
“Some readers may be struck by a lack of balance in our treatment of
the two major political parties,” they admit, but insist that they
hope not for Democratic hegemony, but for “two vibrant and
constructive political parties.” They mean, of course, two parties
that actually believe in the efficacy of government to help society, a
notion the tea party Republicans appear to reject.
Mann and Ornstein chose not to explore the history of today’s voters’
cynicism, a powerful ingredient in the poisonous brew they describe.
Doing so would have given them a chance to add some even-handedness to
their story. In 1964, on the eve of the disastrous Vietnam War, 77
percent of Americans expected their government do “do the right thing”
always or most of the time, according to opinion polls. Ten years
later, after Vietnam and Watergate, 77 percent had become 36. Today it
is less than 20 percent who have that confidence in the government.
The Vietnam War, largely the work of Democrats, and Richard Nixon
together destroyed Americans’ confidence in their governing
institutions. It has never been restored. Several generations have
grown up since reflexively distrusting their government.
And now, as Mann and Ornstein document so vividly, at a time when only
good government could help us rediscover our footing as a nation, our
Grand Old Party defines itself as the party of anti-government. This
is why the title of this book is so good: Our situation really is even
worse than it looks.
Dare
May 6, 2012, 3:20:11 PM5/6/12
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:90f3ca41-ae92-4a5e...@c4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Thomas Jefferson was also concerned about how
misconceptions and an uninformed populace could
destroy liberty.
Time for a revolution?
The Tree of Liberty....
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/tree-liberty-quotation
Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long
hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy,
that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers
themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them
ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single
instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably
conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all,
and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the
importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions
it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states
independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in
a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half
without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
>
> The reason for the "both parties are the same" lie is to reduce
> political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
> powerless..
>
> The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
> public satisfied and not seek change.
>
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:90f3ca41-ae92-4a5e...@c4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
> powerless..
>
> The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
> public satisfied and not seek change.
>
> The reason for the "both parties are the same" lie is to reduce
> political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
> powerless..
>
> The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
> public satisfied and not seek change.
How long will it work?
> political participation, disable democracy and to make voters feel
> powerless..
>
> The reason for the "it's a vibrant democracy" lie is to keep the
> public satisfied and not seek change.
Thomas Jefferson was also concerned about how
misconceptions and an uninformed populace could
destroy liberty.
Time for a revolution?
The Tree of Liberty....
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/tree-liberty-quotation
Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long
hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy,
that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers
themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them
ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single
instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably
conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all,
and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the
importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions
it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states
independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in
a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half
without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
>
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 4:51:02 PM5/6/12
to
> >As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
> >media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
. . .
> >media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
> Mann and Ornstein chose not to explore the history of today’s voters’
> cynicism,
root of the problem, the 0.0001% controlled media that absolutely
_must_ Jerry Springerize the political debate to stay in power.
Two solutions:
1. www.gushhype.com, a wiki style journalism review where news
organizations as well as individuals are exposed for hyping non
economic issues, i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc, or issues of minor
economic importance, i.e., the individual mandate and terrorist
attacks, beyond all reasonable measure.
2. Occupy News Room. The oligarchy is 100% dependent on the media to
fool the majority into thinking the media are their friends when in
fact the primary interest of the media is getting that check from the
0.0001%. That's Job 1 at the MSM. If properly done ONR could quickly
expose the media for who they really are: shills "merely" omitting
economic issues of primary importance to the economy and democracy.
Bret Cahill
jonathan
May 6, 2012, 9:30:18 PM5/6/12
to
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:9298ca38-2c50-434d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
better than most think.
Lies, misperceptions and ignorance are all
points of views, as important to the whole
as truth, accuracy and information.
Which would you remove?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
BeamMeUpScotty
May 6, 2012, 9:42:28 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 9:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:9298ca38-2c50-434d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>>
>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> better than most think.
people are pretty stupid in general.
> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:9298ca38-2c50-434d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>>
>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> better than most think.
I hit a few here and there that can do more than regurgitate some
erroneous facts they memorize, but NOT that many. It's a little scary
that so many are brain dead and so many are college educated and still
brain dead.
Voters catch on when they're standing out in the cold and the dark...
but by then it's a little too late.
Can you imagine The Cardassians on the TV, actually in a voting booth?
I would laugh till I had tears in my eyes.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 11:05:43 PM5/6/12
to
> > As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
> > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> better than most think.
>
> Lies, misperceptions and ignorance are all
> points of views, as important to the whole
> as truth, accuracy and information.
>
> Which would you remove?
The lies, misperceptions and ignorance.
> > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> better than most think.
>
> Lies, misperceptions and ignorance are all
> points of views, as important to the whole
> as truth, accuracy and information.
>
> Which would you remove?
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
May 6, 2012, 11:26:22 PM5/6/12
to
In article
<bfb14909-4836-4b2e...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
snicker
<bfb14909-4836-4b2e...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Which would you remove?
>
> The lies, misperceptions and ignorance.
Then there'd be no Democrat party.
> > Which would you remove?
>
> The lies, misperceptions and ignorance.
snicker
jonathan
May 7, 2012, 5:07:21 AM5/7/12
to
news:bfb14909-4836-4b2e...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
So who decides which of us is honest, and
well informed and represents truth?
Wouldn't it have to be the very same people
and what kind of society would that create?
s
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
well informed and represents truth?
Wouldn't it have to be the very same people
and what kind of society would that create?
s
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
jonathan
May 7, 2012, 5:11:44 AM5/7/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4FA72884...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
towards the opposites, eggheads for instance.
Only through complete freedom and inclusion can a
balanced form.
Complexity at the part level leads to order in the whole.
If you simplify the components or voters, the output
becomes chaotic.
s
Bret Cahill
May 7, 2012, 10:06:47 AM5/7/12
to
> >> > As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
> >> > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >> > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >> > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> >> > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> >> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> >> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> >> better than most think.
>
> >> Lies, misperceptions and ignorance are all
> >> points of views, as important to the whole
> >> as truth, accuracy and information.
>
> >> Which would you remove?
>
> > The lies, misperceptions and ignorance.
>
> So who decides which of us is honest, and
> well informed and represents truth?
Each individualist for himself.
> >> > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >> > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >> > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> >> > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> >> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> >> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> >> better than most think.
>
> >> Lies, misperceptions and ignorance are all
> >> points of views, as important to the whole
> >> as truth, accuracy and information.
>
> >> Which would you remove?
>
> > The lies, misperceptions and ignorance.
>
> So who decides which of us is honest, and
> well informed and represents truth?
Any more questions?
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
May 7, 2012, 11:03:24 AM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 5:11 AM, jonathan wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4FA72884...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>> On 5/6/2012 9:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9298ca38-2c50-434d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
>>>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
>>>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
>>>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>>>
>>> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
>>> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
>>> better than most think.
>>
>>
>> people are pretty stupid in general.
>>
>>
>> I hit a few here and there that can do more than regurgitate some
>> erroneous facts they memorize, but NOT that many. It's a little scary
>> that so many are brain dead and so many are college educated and still
>> brain dead.
>>
>>
>> Voters catch on when they're standing out in the cold and the dark...
>> but by then it's a little too late.
>>
>>
>> Can you imagine The Cardassians on the TV, actually in a voting booth?
>
>
> But if you banish them from voting, you create a bias
I'd never banish them from voting..... I simply recognize their weakness.
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4FA72884...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>> On 5/6/2012 9:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9298ca38-2c50-434d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
>>>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
>>>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
>>>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>>>
>>> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
>>> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
>>> better than most think.
>>
>>
>> people are pretty stupid in general.
>>
>>
>> I hit a few here and there that can do more than regurgitate some
>> erroneous facts they memorize, but NOT that many. It's a little scary
>> that so many are brain dead and so many are college educated and still
>> brain dead.
>>
>>
>> Voters catch on when they're standing out in the cold and the dark...
>> but by then it's a little too late.
>>
>>
>> Can you imagine The Cardassians on the TV, actually in a voting booth?
>
>
> But if you banish them from voting, you create a bias
with the "non thinkers" voting we are saved and we are lost. They are
stupid enough to vote for communism.
The question is, are we smart enough to convince them to NOT voting for
communism.
Bret Cahill
May 7, 2012, 1:21:33 PM5/7/12
to
> >>>> As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
> >>>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >>>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >>>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> >>>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> >>> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> >>> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> >>> better than most think.
>
> >> people are pretty stupid in general.
>
> >> I hit a few here and there that can do more than regurgitate some
> >> erroneous facts they memorize, but NOT that many. It's a little scary
> >> that so many are brain dead and so many are college educated and still
> >> brain dead.
>
> >> Voters catch on when they're standing out in the cold and the dark...
> >> but by then it's a little too late.
>
> >> Can you imagine The Cardassians on the TV, actually in a voting booth?
>
> > But if you banish them from voting, you create a bias
>
> I'd never banish them from voting..... I simply recognize their weakness.
>
> with the "non thinkers" voting we are saved and we are lost. They are
> stupid enough to vote for communism.
>
> The question is, are we smart enough to convince them to NOT voting for
> communism.
You'd first need to be smart enough to answer The Question:
> >>>> media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> >>>> one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> >>>> claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> >>>> Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> >>> It's fun to argue politics, I tend to take an
> >>> attitude that the voters see through the nonsense
> >>> better than most think.
>
> >> people are pretty stupid in general.
>
> >> I hit a few here and there that can do more than regurgitate some
> >> erroneous facts they memorize, but NOT that many. It's a little scary
> >> that so many are brain dead and so many are college educated and still
> >> brain dead.
>
> >> Voters catch on when they're standing out in the cold and the dark...
> >> but by then it's a little too late.
>
> >> Can you imagine The Cardassians on the TV, actually in a voting booth?
>
> > But if you banish them from voting, you create a bias
>
> I'd never banish them from voting..... I simply recognize their weakness.
>
> with the "non thinkers" voting we are saved and we are lost. They are
> stupid enough to vote for communism.
>
> The question is, are we smart enough to convince them to NOT voting for
> communism.
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
The more teabaggers/libertarians/Republicans dodge The Question the
more you help the commies.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
May 8, 2012, 12:25:17 PM5/8/12
to
99% with "bipartisan" legislation then why can't the 99% respond in
kind?
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
May 8, 2012, 3:25:55 PM5/8/12
to
In article
<79f71b71-9eab-497e...@z14g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
They have been . . . for years. That's why the 1% pay so much taxes
snicker
<79f71b71-9eab-497e...@z14g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
snicker
Bret Cahill
May 8, 2012, 3:53:21 PM5/8/12
to
> > > As with other mutually contradictory propaganda put out by the 0.001%,
> > > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> > > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> > > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> > > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> > If the shills for the 1% can as George Carlin pointed out, rip off the
> > 99% with "bipartisan" legislation then why can't the 99% respond in
> > kind?
>
> They have been . . . for years. That's why the 1% pay so much taxes
Taxes were much higher during the high tax Clinton and Reagan economic
> > > media barons can have one set of pundits "consistently" sticking to
> > > one lie and another set sticking to the other lie and then imply or
> > > claim "all points of view are represented in this great democracy."
>
> > > Of course, the last one is the biggest lie of all.
>
> > If the shills for the 1% can as George Carlin pointed out, rip off the
> > 99% with "bipartisan" legislation then why can't the 99% respond in
> > kind?
>
> They have been . . . for years. That's why the 1% pay so much taxes
boom so the 99.99% need to respond with a bipartisan attack on the
0.01%.
Bret Cahill
0 new messages