HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 40,744

Journal Archives

It was a little over a year ago when my wife and I got to stand up for a couple of our best friends.

We were the only ones there as the couple didn't want their families to attend. The lady judge that volunteers her time to perform marriages said after the ceremony "these are my favorite weddings", referring to the same sex marriage of my two female friends.
This was their third ceremony, the first happened 15 years previous as a quiet affair just between the two. The second was when the State of Washington allowed formal domestic partnerships. This one was important because the state of Washington officially recognizes them as married. Also, this allows one partner to be covered by health insurance from the others work, which wasn't allowed prior to this. It was a big day.

May you have a long and happy marriage.

Posted by rhett o rick | Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:30 PM (0 replies)

So if you are making me guess your point then here goes: If you are saying that

the oligarchs are not exercising Totalitarian control, I will agree. But if you are using that to indicate that the oligarchs aren't in control of this country then I don't agree. Do they let us vote? Sure, but are the votes effective? Not so sure. Do we get to choose who we vote for? Not for the presidency. Do our elected representatives represent us? I don't think so.

The fact that the Aristocracy doesn't exercise 100% control doesn't mean they aren't exercising 80% and it doesn't mean they can't go to 100% should they so choose. I think they realize that many Americans will accept 80% where they might not accept 100%.

It's like the frog in the pot story. The American Aristocracy thinks that the slow boil works better than the fast boil. And those among us that accept the status quo are figuratively saying that the water isn't tooo hot.

Over the last 30 years the American Aristocracy has been stealing the wealth of the middle and working classes. They would like it all but are in no big hurry.

I guess I stumbled trying to make my points.

First, those among us that believe a revolution would solve our problems didn't pay attention to their history lessons and are living in denial. Historically revolutions destroy a lot of the property of the masses, and merely succeed in switching one tyrant for another.

Second, continuing down the roads the lower classes have been taking for the last 30 years will lead to civil unrest but it's not likely the lower classes will unite against the Aristocracy. Most likely the rednecks will fight the minorities. IMO we are already in the first stages as the police (arms of the Aristocracy) have been persecuting the Black Community by harassing them, arresting them, and murdering them in the streets. How far down this road can we go before the Black Community says "enough"? If the Black Community does take a stand, who will support them? Certainly not the well armed Tea Baggers that will side with the police and Aristocracy.

While I might agree that there isn't a specific conspiracy by the Aristocracy, I do believe that the members of the Aristocracy act in harmony for their common interest, which IMO amounts to a conspiracy.

Some here say that things aren't so bad, and if we just keep our heads down, support the status quo, then maybe things will get better. That thinking hasn't worked for the last 30 years.

We must regain control of our local police and our elected representatives.

Revolution anyone? This is for those among us that think we can always fall back on revolution.


I think people take that attitude because they are basically lazy and instead of taking action today, they say, "What me worry, We can always revolt if it gets too bad" Well, about that.....apparently they know nothing of history and dream of successful revolutions where good guys replace bad.

So to those that believe in the revolution dream, tell the rest of us how exactly it will work. Who specifically will join with whom to fight the whose. I bet in your dream the masses unite and drag out the guillotines for the Aristocrats, and when we wake up we have a constitutionally controlled democratic republic. I hate to wake you out of that dream, but the Aristocracy isn't that stupid. What the Aristocracy will do is militarize the police, institute for-profit prisons, clamp down on the black communities (e.g. stop and frisk policies, etc. aimed at the black community). Lock up a good share of the black men and blatantly brutalize others. Those that are locked up will be forced to work as slaves ($2 per hour).

Unless something changes the black community will be under more and more pressure to strike back, to revolt. And the Aristocracy would like nothing better. Their goal is to turn some of the masses against others. And guess why the Powers That Be let the idiots have guns? Guess whose side the idiots will be on.

When they come for the African Americans will you stand up for them?
When they come for the Occupy Wall Streeters, will you stand up for them?
When the come for the leftist, will you stand up them?
You can bet the Tea Baggers won't.

It's never too soon to fight back.

Support Your Local Foodbanks and Soup Kitchens


Local foodbanks are struggling. In tight economic times, donations to foodbanks tend to dry up. And this is the time when help is most needed as more and more people are relying on local foodbanks for help.

Please donate non-perishable foods. Even if the cans are dented or past expiration date they may still be good. Let the foodbank make the decision.

Donating cash is the best because foodbanks usually can buy about three times more food for the dollar than you can.

It’s also important to donate time. At our foodbank about 75% of the labor is volunteered.

Some foodbanks take clothes and household items that they give away for free.

Foodbanks usually need simple things like boxes, plastic grocery bags, and glass jars. Ask your local foodbank what they need.

Some people are wary that their donations are distributed fairly and efficiently. Volunteer to be a member of the Board of Directors and influence the operations of your local foodbank.

Also help the homeless. Our foodbank works with local soup kitchens and street ministries. Here are some specific items the homeless value:

Hats*, socks*, coats, rain ponchos*, space blankets*, tarps, tents, sterno, canned meats and meals that can be opened w/o opener, bottled water, hand sanitizer and first aid items, granola bars*, bus tokens, grocery gift cards, etc.

*Some items can be purchased in quantity at low prices online like at smile.Amazon. Note, if you use smile.amazon.com, they will donate to your designated charity (foodbank?).

Please support your local foodbank.

Thanks Supremes - Down the Slippery Slope To a National Religion

The Supreme Court rules that government meetings can have an opening prayer. How can that not violate the Constitutional right of separation of Church and State?

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions. "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

Let’s get this straight; Justice Kennedy says that the prayers are only “ceremonial”? I wonder what God thinks about that. And they should be allowed because they are “traditional”? Wasn’t that an argument to support slavery? Oops, shouldn't say that too loudly, next the Court might strike down the 13th Amendment.

I counter the “ceremonial” and “tradition” argument with the slippery slope argument. Next thing you know the theists will be including God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, if you allow non-proselytizing prayers, you will start to get more proselytizing prayers.

As I see it, praying out loud with head bowed and maybe hands together is proselytizing. In my opinion the words, "and thank Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior" or something similar, is Christian proselytizing and has no business at government meetings. It is certainly aimed at impressing someone other than God. I haven’t seen any evidence that God cares how you pray so why does it have to be demonstrative? If you want your particular god to bless the meeting, discuss it with him or her in the parking lot before you go into the meeting.

The bad thing about this is that it pressures others to conform to the will of the majority. Who wants to be the only one in the room that isn’t praying? And what about other religions? Do they get to say their own prayers?

The Constitution is crystal clear in it’s meaning of, “ no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Having Christian prayers at the beginning of a government meeting qualifies as a test. You might as well ask public officials to raise their hand if they are not a Christian.

The religious Right-Wing has won another battle for "one nation under Christ".
Posted by rhett o rick | Fri May 9, 2014, 10:12 AM (0 replies)

This is only a secret to those that live in a naive denial bubble.

It has to be glaringly obvious what has happened to our "two party" system. It's only logical Captain, that the wealthy oligarchs would buy control of both parties. Duh!

The naive among us (maybe they're just lazy) want sooo badly to be able to know who to support from only their party affiliation. D's are good and R's are bad, and plez dont complicate things by pointing out the flaws in that thinking.

The naive are ecstatic that the Republican Party appears to be in major trouble. They believe that their troubles would all be over if the Republican Party just disappeared. They dont recognize that the value of the two-party system. They think we would have just one big party of good guys, that the right-wing ideologies die with the party (I think cherry is their favorite flavor).

I have been saying over and over that a Clinton vs. Christie race would be win-win for the Wall Street Oligarchs. Now it looks like a Clinton-Bush race*. Same difference. Maybe we should dispense with the election and flip a coin to see whether Clinton or Bush should be president with the loser being the Vice President. The Wall-Street Oligarchs are already celebrating.

The fact that Clinton is a favorite of Wall Street isnt a secret except for those with their heads in their sand.


*IMHO the BFEE still are a faction to be reckoned with KR's finger prints are all over Christie-Gate. Just sayin. Always keep your eyes on KR.

That would be the smart thing to do, but unreg-capitalism doesnt have a mechanism for that.

In unreg-capitalism the goal is having the greatest wealth. So who is going to step forward and "let loose" with their wealth?

Adam Smith thought that enlighten-self interest would drive individuals to build or create wealth. And I dont think he was wrong. But he was relying on these capitalists being "enlightened", and that is not practical in the capitalistic system. Those that are "enlightened" are soon buried by those that let greed lead the way. It is so much easier to steal wealth than create it.

Bad Analogy Time: Unreg-capitalism is like have no speed limits on our roads. Those with the biggest cars would bowl over everyone else.

And that's your justification for what exactly? When David takes on Goliath some people

immediately side with David and some immediately side with Goliath, revealing to me authoritarian issues on both sides. That may include me (not in this particular case) because I do have authoritarian issues. I tend to mistrust authoritarians unless proven otherwise. And I believe those that side with Goliath also have issues with authoritarians. They tend to trust authoritarians until proven otherwise. And in the case of priests, continue to trust authoritarians even after proven otherwise.

But because a few (several?) posters on a message board of thousands declared Snowden a hero shouldnt be used to rationalize that he isnt. But once again, and again, whether Snowden is a hero or not is beside the point. The important point is that we, as a society may have a trust problem with our elected and appointed people that are supposed to be working in our best interest. It is every bit our responsibility to assure that they are working in our best interest.

Most here recognize that the investigative report on Christie is most likely tainted. The same reasoning should lead us to be suspicious of investigative reports issued by the NSA about the NSA. And we should be suspicious of attempts by the NSA to smear anyone that dares to speak out in this democratic society.

If you want democracy you must demand it and be vigilant, and be very weary of those that ask you to blindly trust them.

I think to characterize capitalism as evil reveals part of our economic problem.

Capitalism is an economic system and itself isnt evil any more than a knife is evil. I know this sounds like I am being picky but believing that capitalism is evil goes along with the idea that capitalism is like a person and it isnt. Capitalism should be viewed as a tool which can be used for good or bad just like a knife.

Humans cannot live in society without rules. There is a natural tendency to look out for one's self. But to live in an orderly society, humans must some times sacrifice what's best for themselves to make the society function for the best of the society.

Also, it must be clear that when we say capitalism needs to be regulated, we mean "for the benefit of society as a whole" and not for a select few. Our capitalistic based system currently has lots of regulations, but they have been modified to benefit a very small, select few.

The SCOTUS did our society a great disservice in the Citizens United decision where they ruled that our Constitution restricted us as a society on how much we can regulate our capitalist system. They demonstrated their enormous power to overrule the Congress and the President. IMO this is out of hand. The SCOTUS has too much power (but that's a discussion for another day).

The argument that the capitalist (oligarchs) cant be regulated by society because it's not "democratic" is bogus. Our democracy isnt inherently laissez-faire. We as a society can and must control our democracy and economic system to benefit society as a whole and strip the oligarchs of their power.

Capitalism isnt evil, we must take responsibility to control it, by whatever means necessary.

Other than that, have a great day.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »