HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 12:05 PM
Number of posts: 50,990

Journal Archives

Let's take a look at your logic. You say "just the facts", which first of all would be a little

audacious for you to think that you have been blessed with recognizing the "facts". None of which you've proven yourself but you believe in someone else's "facts". It's understandable that one needs to choose a side, but you choose the side of authoritarianism to believe. You choose the side of the NSA/CIA Black State that has an unlimited budget and no oversight.

I choose the side of skepticism. I believe that with an unlimited budget and no oversight that the NSA/CIA Black State would do whatever they can get away with.

I think that those that despise whistle-blowers, journalist, and protestors, do so because they live in the denial that their chosen authoritarian gods will be good to them. Gen Clapper might use his unlimited power for goodness if we are lucky, but in doing so, he may nullify our liberties and freedoms. Authoritarians are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties for the promise of a little security. They are fools.
Posted by rhett o rick | Fri May 8, 2015, 11:08 PM (1 replies)

I think you might be trying to play down this new Movement.

There is enthusiasm from places that have been ambivalent before. That's why Sen Sanders is such a threat to the status quo, to the Plutocratic Oligarchs, to Goldman-Sachs and the corrupt banksters. They aren't afraid of Sen Sanders as much as they are afraid of the Populist Movement. It's catching on around the world. Protests everywhere about social inequality and economic inequality.

The Corp-Media and the Conservatives are all denying that there is a movement to their own peril.

Get on board the Populist Movement and support Sen Sanders.
Posted by rhett o rick | Sat May 2, 2015, 06:08 PM (1 replies)

Gore got approx 51 million votes. There were 158.8 million eligible voters that

did not vote for Gore. Of those that didn't vote for Gore less than 2% voted for Nader. You should concentrate your wrath on the over 150 million people that didn't vote for Gore. Many thought Gore/Lieberman was a continuation of the DLC Clinton years.

It doesn't matter if you think Gore/Lieberman was a weak choice, millions of Americans thought so and didn't vote for him. A running mate of Lieberman didn't help.

The lesson should be for people that think that Democrats can run a corporate candidate against a Republicon candidate should be surprised when they lose. If you want Jeb, nominate another DLC, corporate candidate in H. Clinton. You won't have Nader for a scapegoat, it doesn't look like.

Soak the Rich? Or Get Our Wealth Back?

When we had controls on our capitalism, the capitalists needed growth to grow their wealth.

During that time the middle and lower classes shared the growth and the wealth. Free and abundant resources helped the growth. However, when the resources became scarce, the huge combined wealth of the middle and lower classes became a very tempting target for the rich. The rich discovered it was easier to buy some Congress-Critters, get the restrictions lifted, and steal from the middle and lower classes. This was not growth. When the middle and lower classes ask for their money back, they are accused of wanting to “soak the rich.”

When the rich are stealing our wealth (they say “it’s just business) like they did when the banks failed in 2008, no growth results. When the rich run the market up by buying and selling back and forth, it isn’t growth it’s a pyramid scheme that will eventually fall.

But if the rich invest in jobs and infrastructure, that will lead to real growth that we can all share. The government (us) needs to strongly encourage the rich to do just that.

I certainly understand having a passion about an issue, but to let it get into the

"drag them into the street and shame them or run them out of town on a rail." stage, is too much. The mob wants their frustrations sated with someone's punishment. They start by intending to punish only those that are most guilty, but it is hard to control because people get involved that are only interested in meting out the punishment, the bullying and not so much the issue. This thread is a great example. The OP author claims to be pro-vaccines but calls for reason. One can be both pro-vaccines, pro-medical science and still not trust Big Pharma. But once the self-righteous frenzy starts, it's hard to contain.

While it's progressive to believe in science it's not progressive to vilify those that don't. The best weapon to fight ignorance is education, not vilification.
Posted by rhett o rick | Fri Feb 6, 2015, 04:01 PM (0 replies)

The war we are waging is a class war. The 1% vs. the 99%. The Conservatives favor the 1% and the

Progressives favor the 99%. That's not too controversial. Now wouldn't it be nice and easy for those that seek easy, to have all the Progressive be Democrats and all the Conservatives be Republicans. That way one wouldn't have to analyze what a person stood for but merely observe what party they are in. But the world isn't that simple. Many, many conservatives have distanced themselves from the Crazy-Assed Republican and now call themselves Democrats. That certainly doen't mean they changed their ideologies but merely changed their labels. So the war we are fighting to regain our democracy is between the progressives and conservatives.

IMO it's not enough to support social issues to be a non-conservative. If you also support the oligarchy domination you most likely are conservative even if you label yourself a Democrat.

I will speak out against those that support policies that weaken our democracy and economy for the 99%.
Posted by rhett o rick | Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:02 PM (1 replies)

Lack of Voter Turnout Isn’t the Problem

Lack of votes in and of itself is not our problem.

In 2000 when the Republicans and SCOTUS stole the election, lack of votes wasn’t the problem.
In gerrymandered districts, more votes won’t change the outcomes. For example, if a district is 90% Democrats and the Democrats always win; more votes won’t change a thing. In a district that is split 60% Republican and 40% Democrats, and the Republicans win 60 – 40, more votes would not change the results.

The problem is the lack of Progressive Votes.

Our voting system is set up to disenfranchise and discourage Progressive Democrats from voting and/or render Democratic votes meaningless.

A bad analogy would be to assume our voting system is one big giant DieBold voting machine. No matter who you want to win, the results are what the Oligarchs want. Shoving more votes into the machine won’t change what comes out the other side.

So what are the real problems?

The basic problem is that we get too few Progressive votes.

And one big reason is that our voting system is corrupted. Until that’s fixed, getting more people to vote won’t solve our problem.

Also, the voters are mislead by the Corp-Media. We must figure out how to counter that. If we don’t fix this, the “more votes” we get may be for Conservatives.

Another reason we don’t get more Progressive votes is that we have too few Progressive candidates at the national level and the candidates we have won’t speak out against Conservatism loud enough to convince the public that there is a different between the parties.

If you want to get more Progressive Democrats to vote, work on solving the above problems. Simply complaining about lack of turnout is counter productive.

Once Again President Obama Chooses a Fox to Guard the Henhouse.

Once Again President Obama Chooses a Fox to Guard the Henhouse.

President Obama’s pick to be Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance is Antonio Weiss. His new job would be to oversee the domestic financial system—including the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial-reform act, and consumer protection. He is currently the global head of investment banking at Lazard Ltd, a firm that has put together several major inversion deals. Why is this significant?
“Since 2003, more than thirty-five American companies have dodged taxes through similar deals, which are known as “corporate inversions.””

A number of progressive Senators, lead by Sen Warren have reservations. "Warren has a number of problems with Weiss. The first is the fact that his career has been focused on international transactions. “Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury,” she wrote. The second is that he’s tied up in the corporate-inversion trend, which, as she notes, the Obama administration has criticized and tried to stop."
Sen Warren further stated, “It’s time for the Obama administration to loosen the hold that Wall Street banks have over economic policy making.”

Sen Warren’s third concern is “about the fox guarding the henhouse. She ticked off a long list of people with close ties to the financial industry who now serve in high-level economic-policy positions in the Obama administration, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and US Trade Representative Michael Froman. Letting former Wall Streeters roost in top government perches “tells people that one—and only one—point of view will dominate economic policymaking. It tells people that whatever goes wrong in this economy, the Wall Street banks will be protected first,” she wrote.”

Read more at The Nation Magazine - http://www.thenation.com/blog/191289/next-big-fight-between-progressives-and-wall-street-dems

I kind of woke up to it in 2008.

This is real conspiracy stuff so expect the CT deniers to swoop in.
By the end of 2007 I was convinced that our rulers (at the time I thought it was at the Cheney level) were all set up to "temporarily extend" the Bush presidency because of some trumped up national emergency. But when I saw Bush and Cheney turn from belligerent, egotistical bullies into whimpering dogs that crawled out of DC with their tails between their legs, I decided there was a higher power pulling the strings. And it makes sense once you think about it. I imagine it goes back decades but at least we can understand how the CIA/NSA/FBI etc. could increase their powers during the Lost Bush Decade. They had a great excuse, the second "Cheney's Pearl Harbor", an unlimited budget, and zero Congressional oversight. So it's easy for me to deduce that there is likely a group of people that together pull the strings, at least at the macro level, of our government. And they would prefer Bush for president or McCain or even HRC, but they are not threatened by Obama.
I think it's a mistake to believe that when Obama walked into office that he wrested control of everything from those that had it. I bet the NSA/CIA Security State have a lot of secrets that they don't tell him about. If nothing else, they have the power to embarrass him badly. And they have an unlimited budget.
Having said all that, I still believe (or at least consciously fool myself) that we the people can change things. But that belief took a big hit when Sen Sanders came out an told what would be risked if they decide to run for president against the Oligarchy (my word). His statement forced me back into a reality that isn't good but probably necessary. Can we ask that much of him or others?

Sorry, just had to unload that.

Ah yes, the questions of insinuation. The technique used when one doesn't

have the confidence of stating their own opinion* regarding H. Clinton's integrity. Let's see if we can clear up your insinuations.

"Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004" The implication of course being that if I was a good Democrat and supported the Democratic candidate and since that candidate was one that betrayed us then I would be obligated to forgive H. Clinton for her betrayal. Even you should admit how weak that argument is.

"are you ready to throw Joe Biden over the side as well?" I guess the insinuation here is that before I can be critical of H. Clinton's betrayal, I have to acknowledge Joe Biden's betrayal. If I did would you then come back with a list of others that didn't have the integrity to stand up to George Bush and ask me one by one to denounce them?

Here are some questions for you:
Do you think the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the most disastrous decision in the last century?
Do you think George Bush was lying when he told us there were WMD in Iraq, the Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and that Iraq was aiding al Qaeda?
Do you think H. Clinton knew she was lying when she gave her famous speech that echoed the Republicans selling points for the war?
Do you think H. Clinton showed her lack of integrity at that important time?
Do you think she can be trusted now? If so, why?
Don't you think we can find other candidates that have integrity?

* This is a general statement, I am sure you are willing to clearly state your opinion regarding H. Clinton's integrity.

For the record, I condemn all that voted for the Iraq War, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. Some people claim there is not a difference between the major parties. Well this vote was a good opportunity to prove that wrong. To prove that the DEmocratic Party stood for principles and could stand up for the people. And bravo to those that stood up against the Oligarch's thirst for war and damn those that cashed in their integrity for whatever their excuse was. If we have no better choices than those that proved they have zero integrity, then we are already lost.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »