HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 5 Signs the United States...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:46 PM

5 Signs the United States Is Undergoing a Coup - James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/5-signs-the-united-states-is-undergoing-a-coup/258904/#.T-fQJW0EP-8.twitter

snip

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.

Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.

Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and appointments, especially to the courts.

And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

snip

a sobering read.

136 replies, 21995 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 136 replies Author Time Post
Reply 5 Signs the United States Is Undergoing a Coup - James Fallows (Original post)
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 OP
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #1
OverseaVisitor Jun 2012 #63
Canuckistanian Jun 2012 #113
OverseaVisitor Jun 2012 #117
Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #66
upi402 Jun 2012 #127
joycejnr Jun 2012 #100
villager Jun 2012 #110
cantbeserious Jun 2012 #2
PDJane Jun 2012 #3
ldf Jun 2012 #10
Raster Jun 2012 #11
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #17
JHB Jun 2012 #48
Skittles Jun 2012 #12
agent46 Jun 2012 #16
TeamPooka Jun 2012 #4
freshwest Jun 2012 #83
Karen Ellis Jun 2012 #5
OnyxCollie Jun 2012 #6
CrispyQ Jun 2012 #65
clang1 Jun 2012 #85
Octafish Jun 2012 #99
Javaman Jun 2012 #7
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #8
clang1 Jun 2012 #43
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #46
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #9
Raster Jun 2012 #14
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #15
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #22
ancianita Jun 2012 #28
bbgrunt Jun 2012 #31
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #33
bbgrunt Jun 2012 #38
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #39
dotymed Jun 2012 #77
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #64
LongTomH Jun 2012 #82
clang1 Jun 2012 #90
frylock Jun 2012 #89
clang1 Jun 2012 #92
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #94
frylock Jun 2012 #95
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #98
clang1 Jun 2012 #104
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #105
clang1 Jun 2012 #106
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #108
clang1 Jun 2012 #109
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #111
frylock Jun 2012 #136
frylock Jun 2012 #135
clang1 Jun 2012 #103
Bandit Jun 2012 #75
CRH Jun 2012 #107
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #55
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #114
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #115
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #116
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #122
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #129
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #131
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #133
libinnyandia Jun 2012 #134
clang1 Jun 2012 #132
bvar22 Jun 2012 #80
Comrade_McKenzie Jun 2012 #13
loudsue Jun 2012 #18
TheDebbieDee Jun 2012 #19
eztalker2 Jun 2012 #20
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #21
eztalker2 Jun 2012 #29
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #58
kdmorris Jun 2012 #49
Quantess Jun 2012 #59
Tumbulu Jun 2012 #119
blm Jun 2012 #23
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #24
blm Jun 2012 #60
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #81
Dustlawyer Jun 2012 #25
Blanks Jun 2012 #56
Samantha Jun 2012 #26
davidwparker Jun 2012 #27
clang1 Jun 2012 #79
pa28 Jun 2012 #30
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #32
clang1 Jun 2012 #40
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #42
clang1 Jun 2012 #45
Quantess Jun 2012 #61
clang1 Jun 2012 #97
donheld Jun 2012 #34
clang1 Jun 2012 #41
pa28 Jun 2012 #44
clang1 Jun 2012 #128
clang1 Jun 2012 #35
Initech Jun 2012 #36
clang1 Jun 2012 #37
Initech Jun 2012 #73
cantbeserious Jun 2012 #102
dflprincess Jun 2012 #118
Dan Jun 2012 #124
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #125
DLevine Jun 2012 #47
bupkus Jun 2012 #50
sulphurdunn Jun 2012 #51
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #52
raouldukelives Jun 2012 #54
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #57
clang1 Jun 2012 #67
moondust Jun 2012 #62
clang1 Jun 2012 #71
Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #68
clang1 Jun 2012 #87
lunatica Jun 2012 #69
Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #70
lunatica Jun 2012 #72
Doctor_J Jun 2012 #74
valerief Jun 2012 #76
mother earth Jun 2012 #78
RainDog Jun 2012 #84
southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #86
tpsbmam Jun 2012 #88
RoccoR5955 Jun 2012 #91
Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #93
Adenoid_Hynkel Jun 2012 #112
47of74 Jun 2012 #96
WillyT Jun 2012 #101
joycejnr Jun 2012 #120
NRaleighLiberal Jun 2012 #121
Quantess Jun 2012 #130
Tsiyu Jun 2012 #123
upi402 Jun 2012 #126

Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:49 PM

1. And some of us have said this is going on for a few years

here, and got laughed at...

We are also in the middle of a cold, very cold, civil war... hey Tweety even stole my line there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:04 AM

63. DU had changed


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OverseaVisitor (Reply #63)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:05 PM

113. Hey, welcome back!

You've been away a while... I remember you from 'way back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #113)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:45 PM

117. It had been like

Over 11 years.....
How time flies.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:18 AM

66. But who was laughing? probably the same people who attacked Kucinich for standing up to them...

 

If you were going to send a team of 'democrats' to convince others to keep quiet and eat shit and like it...where would you send them?

This message board is an incredible progressive think tank. I have learned so much here throughout the years. This site gave the kick start to Cindy Sheehan, started the sending pizza revolution in Wisconsin. People are active and thinking here. They get information and send it elsewhere.

If I were a fascist that wanted to control everyone, the easiest thing to do is plant 'leaders' with charisma to lead people to nowhere in Democratic groups. Ridicule is their first tool for shutting down dissent.

This site is very high on their target list. Some are more subtle than others, but there are definitely trying to control us through group think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost of Huey Long (Reply #66)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:28 PM

127. Ridicule and propaganda is a cheap tool of oppressors

and I never miss chance to inform them where they can stuff it here.
It' shard - some folks watch TV news and thing they're being rational.


I was sure I'd have been tombstoned by now. Glad I'm still allowed to learn and gadfly a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:40 PM

100. Yup, and it all started with...

...the SCOTUS saying corporations = people then speech = money, then = unlimited and secretive amounts of money - and topped off with the rigged voting machines. The surrender of our airwaves to the Cons was just frosting on the cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:07 PM

110. Cold... for now

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:58 PM

2. Many Of Us Were Ridiculed For Making These Points About The Threat That Is The Right

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:02 PM

3. I've been beaten up for saying something like this years ago.........

And I'm not the only one. The coup has happened, the rest of it is cleaning up the mess, while dealing with the other things that are going to kill us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:22 PM

10. unfortunately no one is cleaning up the mess

please.

we have to take the high road.

we can't be reduced to fighting dirty like they do.

it is best for the country to move on.

can't we all just get along?

to infinty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ldf (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:26 PM

11. And my all-time favorite...

Gotta keep that powder dry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:46 PM

17. some day that powder, surely the world's driest, will end up on ebay.

What a joke (not mine - the whole dry powder crap - if that didn't demonstrate the weakness of the hands being played, nothing could).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:43 AM

48. Not ebay, burned off as fireworks for their victory celebration

Quite a stockpile too. Some barrels date back to the Reagan years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:27 PM

12. yup

I remember referring to the orginal coup in my very first post on DU back in 2001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:44 PM

16. I was harrassed and ridiculed

for pointing this out in 2004. It's all unfolded exactly the way it seemed it would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:07 PM

4. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever.

General Tagge: But that's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:40 PM

83. Lucas was warning us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:09 PM

5. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:12 PM

6. Sign 6.

The opposition party is opposition in name only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:34 AM

65. +1 -nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:46 PM

85. Ding ding ding.... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:22 PM

99. Like the Washington Generals.

The Harlem Globetrotters win every time.

War. Justice. Civil Rights. Domestic Spying. Torture. Health Care. Jobs. Education. Welfare. You name it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:17 PM

7. Once upon a time...

prescott bush told his halfwit son, "we tried to over throw that damned liberal FDR but if it weren't for Butler, we would have succeeded. Now, son, it may or may not be you, but you make sure that you carry the torch forward. And If it's not you, lay the foundation so your son will it happen".

This has been in the making for over 80 years folks.

I will read the article tomorrow. Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:21 PM

8. Nearly everything that Nixon was accused of is now legal or commonplace.

Rachel Maddow does a good job of explaining this in her book, Drift.

It's a great book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:07 AM

43. Some people take that as progress, not as the exception n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:35 AM

46. It's horrible. And much of the change is due to Cheney's machinations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:22 PM

9. It didn't help that the left was divided in 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:30 PM

14. The left was no where near divided as painted to be. Hyperbole and negative PR.

Selection 2000 was the coup de grace of the coup d' etat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:42 PM

15. exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:10 AM

22. It doesn't matter. They were divided enough...

Voter turnout for '00 was just 51.3% in '00 - only a point better than it was in 1996 (a far less contentious and close election). Most liberals, and average Americans, were apathetic to the whole process because you had an entire agenda pushed to make Bush & Gore look essentially like the same candidate. Even SNL, in their debate sketches, made fun of this by having both constantly agree with each other's point.

Liberals don't deserve all the blame, but they do deserve some of it because the mentality that led to that apathy was widely used by more known liberals back then (Nader, Michael Moore, Bill Maher).

I'll concede Gore does deserve blame, too, for his campaign. But let's not pretend this couldn't have all been avoided. Instead, so many fooled themselves into believing Gore was no different than Bush, which led to a pathetic % of the overall vote actually voting (to put that into perspective, 56.8 voted in the last election). The problem isn't that people are stealing elections, the problem is that NO ONE CARES. When turnout can't even reach 60% in very contested elections, we're fucked.

'68 was the last time Americans gave enough damn to head to the polls in solid numbers. It's pathetic. And it's that misinformation out there, how there is no difference between either party, that leads to Republicans getting into power and then absolutely decimating the political landscape, therefore making it THAT much harder for Democrats to rebuild when they inevitably regain power - which leads to more apathy because it didn't happen fast enough and then more Republicans getting into power, doing more devastation and pushing us further and further back...as has been the case ever since Lyndon Johnson left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:50 AM

28. You nailed it. Thank you.

Yours is the most succinct defining of our crisis of democracy that I've read in recent years. The downward spiral of voter apathy increased by corporate rule of major branches of government is what we're seeing, even though some feel that the struggle is a cold civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:07 AM

31. some of that apathy from the dem side came from the

historic Clinton betrayals with NAFTA, welfare "reform", consolidation of media, further deregulation, and the formation of the DLC. Nader, Moore, and Maher were merely the inevitable outcome of such moves.

When W was awarded the mantle, and with VERY LITTLE popular support, he declared a "mandate" and governed like he had a hurricane in his sails--playing to their base and NEVER disparaging them. The Dems, on the other hand, seem to delight in disparaging progressives and moving ever rightward....and then taking them for granted because they "have no where else to go" Then they demand absolute loyalty and anyone critical is tossed under the proverbial bus.

This is no way to build party unity and enthusiasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bbgrunt (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:33 AM

33. And that's why a great deal of liberals cut their noses off to spite their face...

Was Clinton perfect? Absolutely not. But when you're coming out of essentially 30 years of Republican dominance, as was the case in 1992, you're not going to be able to lurch the country in a dramatically new direction. Clinton had his faults, but I think even most liberals would agree he was infinitely better than what we got from 2001-'09. The problem with that thinking, that you'll be apathetic, is that you continually lose ground. Bush was able to claim a mandate out of a narrow victory because Republicans, at the time, the Democrats had held the White House for all of twelve years between '69-'01. That stretch is unrivaled in modern American politics and ALLOWED the Republicans to tear everything Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy & LBJ built down.

The problem is that to build it back up, you need far more than eight years. Had liberals, and Americans, gone out and supported Gore in '00, instead of just sitting home and letting Bush win, liberalism would be so far more advanced today than it currently is. But because we regressed to pre-Clinton levels after such a short amount of time, we're at a point where every major policy has been, in some ways, shaped by the Reagan era - from trade agreements, to labor unions, to welfare.

What liberals need to understand is that it takes time to build that ideal society. Do you think the Republicans overturned the Progressive Era in one or two election cycles? Of course not. Eisenhower was far more moderate than Nixon and Nixon was more moderate than Reagan and Reagan was more moderate, in some ways, than Bush and Bush, fuck me sideways, is more moderate than these assholes running now. It took time. It took sucking it up and getting moderate politicians in there just to gain power. The only reason the Republicans went with Eisenhower in the 50s is because they knew he was their only chance to win. Without Eisenhower, the party doesn't see the White House again for at least another four years, maybe more. There is no Nixon run eight years later. There is no right-ward lurch because the party is so marginalized that it wouldn't exist anymore.

Politics is about adaption. The Republicans have been adapting and evolving and laying their foundation for the past 40 years. Democrats? It took them a while to figure it out. Prior to that, they were still nominating the same template of candidates that failed election after election - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis. Clinton, warts and all, was the first Democrat to break through nationally and he did it because he was different than those three. Yes, he was more conservative. Yes, he did things that should make liberals squirm, but without him, we would have probably had Republican control for a generation and Lord knows where this country would be with an even longer extension of Reagan economics.

We're facing a similar situation in this election. Become apathetic because Obama isn't good enough and then you're going to watch the Republicans walk into the White House and absolutely destroy everything we've worked for and they'll do it with ease because Democrats can't hold on to power long enough to undo their whole fucking foundation, so it's far easier to build on that shit. When Democrats get in, they've got to not only fix the shit left by Republicans, but then turn around and pass their own agenda.

It's not easy.

Finally, if you're not voting, if you're voting third party, if you're sitting home on that first Tuesday in November, no matter what year, you shouldn't be considered a member of the party. It sounds harsh, but if you're not going to support the Democratic presidential candidate, whether it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama, you're not really a Democrat then in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:50 AM

38. ....and so we have an endless chicken and egg blame game. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bbgrunt (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:07 AM

39. It's not, tho...

Everyone knows you have to start somewhere. Even Roosevelt had the luxury of an era dominated by progressive politics. In fact, his New Deal was an extension of his cousin's Fair Deal. When you constantly have to hit the reset button, you're not going to accomplish much of anything. Four years is not enough to implement dramatic change. Hell, eight years isn't enough. Clinton got us on the right course and then we veered off it in 2000 because too many voters, liberals and average Americans, were just too apathetic.

I don't want to do that again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:37 PM

77. IMO, voting should be mandatory. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:23 AM

53. Bush did not 'win' in 2000. Bush was not 'elected' in 2000. Bush

 

was installed at the end of a bloodless coup d'etat.

Gore in 2000 violated the first law of American politics: lock down your base before you move to the center. Instead, Gore took his base for granted and moved to the center. No wonder Gore's base failed to see much difference between him and the Boy King.

Finally, Gore 'conceded' the election. No one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede, IIRC. He should have denounced the Supreme Court's decision and called for a mass general strike. Why didn't he do so??????

Stop blaming me for Gore's pathetic ineptitude. N.B. I voted for Gore in 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:23 AM

64. x2. And I also voted for Gore.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:33 PM

82. +1000 You need to repeat this post as an OP so more people can see it!

This needs to be repeated over and over before November. If we lose control of the White House in 2012, we lose America. Keeping Mr. Obama in office gives progressives a chance to regain power, even if it takes years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongTomH (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:32 PM

90. IMO This thread should be plastered to lamp post on every street corner

 

I understand what is happening.

What I would suggest to anyone is read about Authority,Information and Power. Read about 'Propaganda of Deception', and Soviet style propaganda, WW2 German propaganda and deception as well. Coupled with some more recent texts on various other associated topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:23 PM

89. seems to me the nose cutting is coming from the sensible centrist wing of the party..

by alienating liberals with their continued support of failed right-wing policy, all under the guise of pragmatism. and then they want to piss and moan and issue idle threats when the progressives have had enough. reap the fucking whirlwind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:10 PM

92. This 'centrist' wing in most other countries

 

would be considered Right, itself. The entire spectrum is skewed across the board here. What people call 'centrist' here is off the charts. Those on the far right here, the right.. are by most measure called extremists in other Western countries. This is what they are.

Couple this with the upstream post that says this: 'The opposition party is opposition in name only.'

It is why this is. There is very little balance to anything anymore either because of this. The radical ideologies of these people and the money are like fire together. They only consume, they do not create. It is why nothing good gets done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:48 PM

94. You alienate yourself by not voting or voting third party...

Why should the Democrats bend over backwards for you when so many of you threaten to either sit the election out or vote third party? Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:01 PM

95. bend over backwards?! that's fucking rich..

adhering to traditional democratic values is bending over backwards now? FTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #95)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:10 PM

98. And you don't get those 'traditional Democratic values'...

Because you sit there and whine and stomp your feet whenever a candidate doesn't do one thing you don't like. Then you sit back and say, "I'M NOT VOTING!" or "I'M VOTING NADER!" and then bitch when, in eight years, the Republican president has destroyed even more 'liberal values' that you supposedly fought so hard for.

Pop quiz: In the 70s and 80s, how much did Democratic values get you? Between the late 60s and early 90s, what exactly did liberals accomplish? Because that era, when we were throwing up token liberals like McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis, we were getting our teeth kicked in...all the while Republicans were undoing everything we gained out of the early 20th Century.

Spare me the lecture. If liberals were serious about pushing for Democratic values, they would elect Democrats, constantly, and build a foundation for their movement. But they don't. Many don't vote. Many vote third party and then whine when everything they believe in is stripped away by REPUBLICANS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #98)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:16 PM

104. Completely ridiculous to say this and your wrong

 

Flat out wrong in fact. You ignore why this is and blame the wrong people. More division for them. Attitudes like yours help them. The problem is a Top down problem, not the other way around like you think it is. You need to complain about the leadership, not the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #104)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:50 PM

105. I'm wrong?

Who sat out in 2000? Who voted Nader in 2000? Who constantly say here and other places they won't vote or won't vote for Obama in November? I'm absolutely right. Liberals are so idealistic they'd rather send the whole movement down the drain than suck it up and fight for the long haul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #105)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:56 PM

106. You do not see the forest for the trees

 

and yet you said the people do not either.... The problem is not the people. None of this is the fault of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #106)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:01 PM

108. Right. Why should we hold people responsible for the way they vote/don't vote...

How dare I suggest that!

If you don't vote for the Democratic candidate, either because you don't care to vote, or you vote third party, I do not believe you're a Democrat - no matter how much you try to tell me otherwise. Those so-called Democrats who sat out past elections, and there were a lot (remember, only 51% of the population voted in '00) are just as responsible for Bush winning as the Republicans who voted for him. We knew what was at stake and some of you didn't care. You didn't care because Clinton wasn't liberal enough and Gore didn't massage your inner thigh well enough. So you pouted, whined, talked about how there was no difference between the two and then when Bush comes to office, starts wars, tries to privatize social security and runs the economy into the ground, you act all surprised! "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?????!?"

haha it happened because so many of you decided you were too good to vote Democratic.

Well you reap what you sow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #108)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:04 PM

109. NOT EVERYONE ONE WANTS ALL YOUR CANDIDATES. Don't you get that!

 

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:25 PM - Edit history (4)

You still completely fail to see the dynamic. That is all I have to say to you about it. What you want does not work and will never work in the current climate. Understand that. We are not the GOP.

It has not worked since the great depression, I doubt it will work again. 1968 to now is a long time ago. More fundamental change is needed now. This is not the same country as it was then. That it worked then, look what it took. Now is not the same country or world. Not the same leadership either. Current leadership would never accomplish this and if they even could then the elites interests are not going to be met. This will not happen. PERIOD. Such coalitions help the many, not the few. Been nearly 50 years to try again and in this new world now. Good luck. It will take different leadership and working for the people, not the elites. Try to understand this.

The system now is designed to keep everyone polarized, and it does. SIMPLE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #109)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:16 PM

111. I know they don't.

And those who go out and vote for some third party candidate or don't vote at all because they don't like Obama are just as responsible for a Republican win as the Republicans. I understand perfectly a lot of liberals don't like Obama. I also understand that they'd rather hold the entire ideology hostage just to prove a point than to actually work for change from the ground up. In reality, many liberals are too lazy and can't invest that much time and energy into actually doing something.

If liberals truly cared about doing something, they would get off their high horse and realize Obama, Gore, Kerry and Clinton were/are infinitely better than the Republican options. But they're too narrow minded to see it that way. Instead, they'll be lazy, apathetic, stick it to the man! group of fools who rail against the right-wing lurch of this nation and do nothing to get us back to the left. We're a right-leaning nation because, for years and years, the left checked out nationally and allowed the Republicans to dominate everything.

Like I said, they reap what they sow. I don't want liberals bitching if Romney wins in November when he decides to send us to war with Iran, or decides he'll cut social security and education and other social programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #105)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:51 PM

136. the nader blamers are just like birthers in my book..

you've had 12 fucking years to bring yourself up to speed on the 2000 election being stolen, yet you still want to scapegoat nader. you have zero fucking credibility on this issue. none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:48 PM

135. you just keep doing what you're doing and enjoy your little right-wing party..

spare me the lecture, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bbgrunt (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:06 PM

103. Well .....

 

and you are right:

'The Dems, on the other hand, seem to delight in disparaging progressives and moving ever rightward....and then taking them for granted because they "have no where else to go" Then they demand absolute loyalty and anyone critical is tossed under the proverbial bus.'

Thanks for saying this. It is because both parties are the same in this regard. They have had their purges as well, we may not be 'purged', but we are ignored. Same difference. Meanwhile everything shifts right and continues to. On both sides. This is all just a part of the broken dynamic to all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:21 PM

75. Since Oregon made vote by mail the system of the state their turn-out has been exceptional

I think Democrats are just plain retarded for trying to block this from becoming the norm.. Republicans figured out decades ago that they got a much bigger turn-out if they mailed out absentee ballots to all registered Republicans. Because of that they have turned a Liberal Country into one that has turned hard right over the last three decades.. Democrats are quite slow to pick up on this....Just think hiow much easier it would be to make your decisions at your kitchen table and then just let the mailman take your ballot.. You never need to worry about finding the time or finding a parking spot or running into that oerson you have been avoiding for some weeks.. It just makes it all so damn convenient for everybody......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:59 PM

107. 68 the last time Americans gave a damn ...

And where or should I say what did that get us? Answer, Richard Nixon.


68 was the last time Americans gave enough damn to head to the polls in solid numbers. It's pathetic. And it's that misinformation out there, how there is no difference between either party, that leads to Republicans getting into power and then absolutely decimating the political landscape, therefore making it THAT much harder for Democrats to rebuild when they inevitably regain power - which leads to more apathy because it didn't happen fast enough and then more Republicans getting into power, doing more devastation and pushing us further and further back...as has been the case ever since Lyndon Johnson left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:54 AM

55. Nader ran a campaign that divided the left. Enough people voted for him to make possible the

appointment of Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:17 PM

114. Nader voters were heavily outnumbered by Democrats who voted for Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:25 PM

115. Nader's numbers in Florida and New Hampshire made the difference. If Gore had carried NH, he

would have won. Nader ran a campaign of Gore equals Bush, which was not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #115)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:27 PM

116. Then Gore should have sought out the votes of the left, which he didn't.

If a candidate fails to win the support of the voters, it's his fault, not the voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #116)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:31 PM

122. When you have a man like Nader telling people not to vote for Gore, then Nader shares some

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

blame. The Gop had majorities in the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court, why would any progressive want to take a chance. And after Bush proved to be such a disaster, why in the world would Nader run again in 2004?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #122)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:06 AM

129. Why should Nader tell his voters to vote for his opponent? Did Gore tell his to vote for Nader?

Why would any progressive want to vote for a 3rd Way Moderate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #129)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:21 AM

131. In a perfect world what happened here in 2000 would not happen. There are tremendous diffrences

between Democrats and Republicans. It is so ironic that a man who spent so much effort to control corporate power would bear some responsibility for the election of a man who appointed Supreme Court justices who would make possoble Citizens United, which increased the power of corporations. Can you tell me one positive outcome of any of Nader's presidential campaigns, other than making people feel good about voting against evil Democrats and Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #131)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:01 AM

133. Do you feel "good" when voting for "not as bad"?

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #133)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:46 AM

134. I feel good when "not as bad" defeats evil. A Gore administration would have been much better

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

than the Bush administration was: no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no tax cuts for the extremely rich, no appointment of Roberts or Alito to the Supreme Court. Gore was not perfect but he was much better than Bush. And Nader lost any credibility with Democrats. He would never have accomplisshed anything without the Democrats in power. Nader helped to empower the Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #129)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:26 AM

132. Seems 99% of the people here just still are not getting it

 

All I can say is WOW. No wonder we lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libinnyandia (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:10 PM

80. "divided in 2000"....

...by those "Democrats" who abandoned the Working Class and Organized LABOR,
and embraced the Republican ideology of Free Trade, De-regulation, Privatization, and Consolidation.
They were well financed (Corporate Money), had a great Marketing campaign,
and smooth talking salesmen.

They marketing was so good, and the salesmen so smooth,
that there are "Democrats" today who STILL insist that "Free Trade" is GOOD for the American Working Class.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:28 PM

13. But if we hold up signs and shout loud enough, they might go away. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:49 PM

18. Yeah. That 'll work. It's working even now. NOT. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:50 PM

19. We've all been witness to a slow motion coup that started with the mugging of

resident Al Gore in 2000.

We are in year # 12 of this bloodless coup and not a single shot has been fired..........

The leadership of other countries must see what goes on here and laugh at the stupidity of Americans who allow themselves to be pacified by hours and hours of faux snooze programming and some highly religious people who want to speed up the end of the world so Jesus can make his return..............Good grief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:06 AM

20. I told people back in 2000 that is was a coup

and they thought I was a political hack! Now 12 years - 2 wars, 9/11, a depression, countless lives lost/ ruined- later standing down was the worst thing the democrats could've done during the 2000 stolen election. The timidity of the democrats along with the docility of the general public during that episode emboldened the republicans and we have been paying the price for this ever since. In Fact, the county has never been the same after 2000 and it will only get worse.

The real irony here is that Democrats had the right reaction to the impeachment sham against Clinton, but essentially abandoned Gore during the election fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eztalker2 (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:09 AM

21. welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:53 AM

29. Thanks...

I'm still not over 2000...never will get over this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eztalker2 (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:05 AM

58. Neither am I - but it is the 2004 coup that sent me to DU.

Wish I had found it earlier, but glad I am here. Oasis of intellect and reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eztalker2 (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:38 AM

49. Welcome to DU, eztalker2!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eztalker2 (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:21 AM

59. I feel very angry about it too.

I remember in 2000 being so wrapped up in my social life, and being totally uninterested in politics. I even forgot to vote! But then when I heard the news from Florida, that the election was really close, I kept waiting for Gore to finally take office, because he won, right? ...right?! I was looking around saying, "what the hell is going on here? There is no way that chump Bush could have gotten elected".

And the Bush presidency was even worse than anyone imagined! It was only in January 2003 when I became hopping mad, really angry. The WMDs were non-existent but we were going to invade Iraq anyway. The invasion of Iraq was when I finally became interested in American politics. It had become glaringly obvious that this was a coup.

USA's leadership was rotten. I could barely believe what was going on. This is what America had become? It was heartbreaking to see the ugly reality. And then things kept getting worse. What a letdown, to see the country you were once proud of and happy to live in, get taken over. Hijacked.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eztalker2 (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:57 PM

119. Thanks for joining us, I think the same thing

and am happy to have DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:11 AM

23. Roberts and Alito were put on the court because they were committed FASCISTS. Bush family's NWO

where the corporate elite would rule in the interests of the multinational corporations that will control this nation's governance.

After 30 years of Rev Moon and Rupert Murdoch controlling the GOP message machine, the GOPs moonie voter base is convinced that this nation's democratic republic, its constitutional democracy should now be replaced with the neo-fascism Moon, Murdoch and the Bushes have long worked towards - that citizen self-government should be replaced with the rule of multinational corporations.

The media used to be more skeptical of the fascist agenda, now, it works for them.

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1997c/091297/091297k.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/29/94258/270

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:22 AM

24. Democrats did nothing to stop their appointmenst. Now the Republicans wont permit the

Pres to appoint anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:32 AM

60. Kerry did launch a filibuster - Schumer and Clinton argued against it in caucus, then

facing thousands of calls to her office in protest, Clinton said she supported the filibuster based on abortion. But, the damage she and Schumer caused early on in caucus, giving centrist Dems cover to not join the filibuster, was already done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:19 PM

81. If my memory serves me, my senator Patti Murry responded to my

email re. Roberts appointment, stating she thought the President should have his appointees. If that is true, why even have a confirmation process? Rhetorical question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:35 AM

25. The author left out 2 other key pieces of their take over:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce started seeding state and local elections and tort reform. They have taken away our right to a real trial by jury by instituting caps that help to keep exposure down, and Republican Courts of Appeals can catch anything that gets through. Does anyone think the McDonalds coffee lady got millions for nothing? Mickey D's superheated the coffee world wide to get twice the coffee from the same amount of beans and it stayed fresh longer. It almost killed her and she lost all of her outer female parts. Did corporate media give us the truth? No, it was woman spills hot coffee, sues Mc Donald's and gets millions. That case was used to start the tort reform movement. It weakened Plaintiff firms who used to support Democrats as much or more than unions. They have had this comprehensive plan in the works for 25 years at least. Democratic politicians cave, not b/c they are weak, but b/c the fix is in! Until enough people wake up, it will only get worse. History says this will not end well! Campaign finance reform is ALL WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:58 AM

56. Didn't the McDonald's lady get a reduced settlement anyway?

After making such a fuss and getting everyone fired up; they didn't actually pay all of the money.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:37 AM

26. Considering that Roberts as an attorney went to Florida and quietly advised Jeb Bush on the recount

in 2000 and worked on a pro bono basis, why should anyone be surprised? He was a Constitutional lawyer, and if one followed the Election 2000 controversy closely, he or she probably realizes that many things said and done at that time were unconstitutional. Roberts and others knew that. The Republicans assumed many people would simply believe the propaganda being issued at that time and their positions would be accepted by many. Jim Baker is a master at this sort of thing.

And George W. Bush*, the real victor to whom the spoils belonged, rewarded Roberts for his efforts by appointing him to the plum seat on the Supreme Court he now holds.

Looking at the whole series of events, the only thing surprising is that anyone would be surprised at any Supreme Court ruling at this point.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:45 AM

27. "Once on the bench, for life" - They can be impeached (House) and removed

(Senate) from the bench.

The founding fathers placed checks and balances regardless of the modern political will to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidwparker (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:53 PM

79. See where we are at with 'Checks and balances' n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:54 AM

30. The founding fathers never planned for stolen elections.

Why would they really? We've heard about "oil shocks" and "financial shocks" but our system was not built for a shock to the republic itself on that scale.

2000 was a coup and we'll live with the negative consequences as long this country exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:10 AM

32. Another sign? Here's an important one. How can the general public be opposed to wage-lowering,

 

let's-send-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements and yet have the support of top level people?

NAFTA was and is an economic disaster for the American working class (or former working class). How many even know that three so-called "free-trade" agreements were signed last year. Such "free-trade" agreements were signed for South Korea, Panama and Colombia.

How many know that another so-called "free-trade" agreement is in the works? One that is called by some to be the NAFTA of the Pacific?

How many know that it is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and Rmoney:

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

What better way is there to make more money for the super-rich when killing American jobs?

Yet, where is the opposition to this from the politicians? The absence of such oppositon is a sign that the governmental system in this country has changed. Whether it is called a coup or not, the governmental system that they taught all of us about in grammer school no longer exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:11 AM

40. Health care would have been a better example

 

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:21 PM - Edit history (6)

In NO country in the WORLD are people saying they don't want universal healthcare. NOWHERE. PERIOD.

--What people don't want universal healthcare here in America because of some sort of American exceptionalism or because everyone's greedy bastards? NO. Its absurd.


I would suggest people look at these three words: Propaganda of Deception.

Start reading there and you WILL enlighten yourself.

Something else, these people learned their way during the cold war, they've learned very well from our former enemies and in places like south america. This is where their playbook comes from. There is no secret 'KR' playbook. Understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:31 AM

42. A better example of what exactly?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:23 AM

45. You'll figure it out n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:41 AM

61. I wonder if

...he is saying that there are alliances such as NAFTA in other parts of the world, with more or less public support depending on who you ask. Universal health care, however, is in popular demand everywhere except the USA.

Maybe that is what he meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:08 PM

97. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:39 AM

34. Did this "Coup" end with the election of Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donheld (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:15 AM

41. Nope everything PROGRESSES when you don't stop things

 

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:01 AM - Edit history (9)

Don't matter if Obama is there or not.

People will wake up here when their doors are getting kicked in I'm afraid. Hope I'm not around for it. To late by that point to do anything. Too late maybe now even.

--I mean shit they already said the Constitution is toilet paper, how much louder do they need to say it!!! I mean jeez. Do you people not take them seriously or something?

I am amazed people need to even guess at this shit. LISTEN to what they SAY. Watch what they DO. It is that simple. Damn.


What is going to/could happen here is there are the elites, and our own Mubarak. It is that simple. The way it is going to happen is one day, the President doesn't leave when his time is up. Simple too. This is called a soft coup.


People here are getting slapped in the faces with all this and are still asking for harder...scary. Something else folks don't seem to get, is they are WINNING either way.... Think about it. One way just takes longer than the other, but they are having a damn good time along the way. Getting rich in fact. While people quible over work at Walmart or McDonalds for 8 bucks an hour. Heeh heeeh... It's the way it is. It does not take that many books to explain all of this either. PROGRESSION


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donheld (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:08 AM

44. I'd call it a "coup" but not the way we traditionally think of it.

A soft coup might be more accurate and since you mentioned it let's take 2008.

America was in the middle of a crisis similar to the great depression. Republicans were running on a status-quo platform with their universally hated incumbent showing a mid 20's approval number.

They ran a disliked angry old man.

We ran a well financed campaign with a well loved once in a generation candidate on a platform of change. People were writing songs about the guy and on election day he was the world's most famous man.

On election day he won a relatively narrow victory. If that's what it takes to win from now on we're in serious trouble.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:58 PM

128. I agree with you 100%. It is the polarization,

 

not doing anything about the past 10 years only feeds this and creates even more division amongst the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:39 AM

35. No one should even need to read an article like this to see

 

things is a happening here and signs are pointing to a direction like that. The reason I say that is because the way this stuff works, there is a progression....we are well underway down the slide of that progression, and well, that's how this stuff works! Grab a book! Any history book. The stuff would not work any different here than let's say Paraguay. Anyone that thinks it would be any different is a fool.

---They gonnnaa take over America so we can take on China. Damn....Just threw that bit in there is all.. Strange times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:45 AM

36. The coup was started in 2000 with Bush V. Gore.

Bush won under some really corrupt circumstances. 9/11 solidified him as a guy you don't want to fuck with. His second term was also won under some ultra corrupt circumstances. Then came Citizens United - which made corporations people and allowed for unlimited funds to finances campaigns. The Koch roaches want to buy our government and make themselves supreme overlords? They can now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:49 AM

37. Yeah.. Planning began well before, but yeah

 

The simple thing for me is we have already seen the complete disdain they have for the US (money and power are all they care about), they are bastards, and well they'd do it in 5 seconds flat if they could. Everyone knows this. To me, it is all just a matter of time. That's it. It's just that simple. America is no different than anywhere else on the planet on things like these. It's scary, perturbing, and a lot more than that. There is a pattern and order to all of this, steady progression, and it is obvious what it all points to. It's just logical and to a point so that it is even common sense to me. It's the way the world works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clang1 (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:10 PM

73. The billionaire class in society have solidified themselves as the real terrorists in this country.

They have caused more death and destruction in the name of the almighty profit than any single cell could ever dream of. We have no reason for going to war anymore other than to line their pocketbooks. They lay off millions and have caused the destruction of our social safety nets. They killed the Gulf of Mexico and that coast line of Northern Japan in their never ending quest for greed. In a society run by these criminals - the one they select as their new leader is a bland, boring, empty suit who gets jollies from firing thousands and tied his dog to the roof of his car. And they'll get away with it - the courts are stacked in their favor. Yeah it took some planning but they'll get it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:49 PM

102. The Coup Began With The Powell Memo In 1971

See Link: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

And here is the complete text of the memo as part of the public record.

DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.

Dimensions of the Attack
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.1 This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.

There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.

But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.

Sources of the Attack
The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.

The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.

Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these "attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.

One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.

Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.

Tone of the Attack
This memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:

William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the "American lawyer most admired," incites audiences as follows:

"You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear."2 The New Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are beginning to act -- not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: "Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists."3 Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.
A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:

"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of 'the politics of despair.' These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans."4 A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: "Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries."5

A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: "It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack -- not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote."6

Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who -- thanks largely to the media -- has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:

"The passion that rules in him -- and he is a passionate man -- is aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison -- for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about 'fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management of blue chip business."7

A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: "The Greening of America," published last winter.

The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as "tax breaks," "loop holes" or "tax benefits" for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit "only the rich, the owners of big companies."8

It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only "business," without benefit to "the poor." The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the "rich" against the "poor," of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.

The Apathy and Default of Business
What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?

The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded -- if at all -- by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.

In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.

But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.

A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: "Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?"9 Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:

"General Motors, like American business in general, is 'plainly in trouble' because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view." Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of "the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics." He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: "College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender."

One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business "plainly in trouble"; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come -- indeed, it is long overdue -- for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.

Responsibility of Business Executives
What specifically should be done? The first essential -- a prerequisite to any effective action -- is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.

The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival -- survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.

The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on "public relations" or "governmental affairs" -- two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.

A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP's) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.

Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.

Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.

The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also -- and this is of immeasurable merit -- there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.

It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.

The Campus
The assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.

Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence -- far out of proportion to their numbers -- on their colleagues and in the academic world.

Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that "balance" is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.

This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: "Because they were taught that way."10 Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater: "Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores' of bright young men ... who despise the American political and economic system."

As these "bright young men," from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust -- if not, indeed "despise" -- they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as "staffers" and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.

Many do enter the enterprise system -- in business and the professions -- and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these "intellectuals" end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.

If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business -- and organizations such as the Chamber -- is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of "openness," "fairness" and "balance" -- which are essential to its intellectual significance -- there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.

What Can Be Done About the Campus
The ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:

Staff of Scholars
The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected -- even when disagreed with.

Staff of Speakers
There also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.

Speaker's Bureau
In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.

Evaluation of Textbooks
The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.

The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.

We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.

If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.

Equal Time on the Campus
The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.

Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.

It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.11 This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard -- in effect, insisted upon "equal time." University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.

The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure -- publicly and privately -- may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.

Balancing of Faculties
Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.

The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.

This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.

Graduate Schools of Business
The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.

Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.

Secondary Education
While the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction -- especially the quality control -- should be retained by the National Chamber.

What Can Be Done About the Public?
Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:

Television
The national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as "Selling of the Pentagon"), but to the daily "news analysis" which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system.12 Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in "business" and free enterprise.

This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints -- to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission -- should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.

Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.

Other Media
Radio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.

The Scholarly Journals
It is especially important for the Chamber's "faculty of scholars" to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for "publication" and "lecturing." A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's scholars.

Incentives might be devised to induce more "publishing" by independent scholars who do believe in the system.

There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals -- ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review, New York, etc.)13 and to the various professional journals.

Books, Paperbacks and Pamphlets
The news stands -- at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere -- are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on "our side." It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made -- on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success -- this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.

Paid Advertisements
Business pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.

If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.

The Neglected Political Arena
In the final analysis, the payoff -- short-of revolution -- is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.

It is still Marxist doctrine that the "capitalist" countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.

Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of "lobbyist" for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the "forgotten man."

Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen's views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to "consumerism" or to the "environment."

Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.

The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking -- not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.

But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination -- without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.

Neglected Opportunity in the Courts
American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.

Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from "liberal" to the far left.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been inconsequential.

This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.

As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.

Neglected Stockholder Power
The average member of the public thinks of "business" as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that "business" actually embraces -- in one way or another -- most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders -- most of whom are of modest means -- are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.

The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders -- 20 million voters -- be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.

Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive "news" magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.

The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible -- through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise -- to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?

A More Aggressive Attitude
Business interests -- especially big business and their national trade organizations -- have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.

As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant -- at least in public -- of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.

Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable "demands" made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.

While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system -- at all levels and at every opportunity -- be far more aggressive than in the past.

There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.

Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected -- where it counts the most -- by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.

It is time for American business -- which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions -- to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.

The Cost
The type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.

The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.

It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.

Quality Control is Essential
Essential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and "quality control." The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees -- all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.

Relationship to Freedom
The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.

It is this great truth -- now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals -- that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.

There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom -- ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.

We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.

In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and -- more recently -- by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable.14 But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.

Conclusion
It hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late.

Footnotes

1 . Variously called: the "free enterprise system," "capitalism," and the "profit system." The American political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack, often by the same individuals and organizations who seek to undermine the enterprise system.

2 . Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1970. Column of William F. Buckley, Jr.

3 . N.Y. Times Service article, reprinted Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 17, 1971.

4 . Stewart Alsop, Yale and the Deadly Danger, Newsweek, May 18. 1970.

5 . Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 7, 1971.

6 . Dr. Milton Friedman, Prof. of Economics, U. of Chicago, writing a foreword to Dr. Arthur A. Shenfield's Rockford College lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," copyrighted 1970 by Rockford College.

7 . Fortune. May, 1971, p. 145. This Fortune analysis of the Nader influence includes a reference to Nader's visit to a college where he was paid a lecture fee of $2,500 for "denouncing America's big corporations in venomous language . . . bringing (rousing and spontaneous) bursts of applause" when he was asked when he planned to run for President.

8 . The Washington Post, Column of William Raspberry, June 28, 1971.

9 . Jeffrey St. John, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1971.

* . Italic emphasis added by Mr. Powell.

10 . Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, "The Total Break with America, The Fifth Annual Conference of Socialist Scholars," Sept. 15, 1969.

11 . On many campuses freedom of speech has been denied to all who express moderate or conservative viewpoints.

12 . It has been estimated that the evening half-hour news programs of the networks reach daily some 50,000,000 Americans.

13 . One illustration of the type of article which should not go unanswered appeared in the popular "The New York" of July 19, 1971. This was entitled "A Populist Manifesto" by ultra liberal Jack Newfield -- who argued that "the root need in our country is 'to redistribute wealth'."

14 . The recent "freeze" of prices and wages may well be justified by the current inflationary crisis. But if imposed as a permanent measure the enterprise system will have sustained a near fatal blow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #102)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:46 PM

118. No, it started November 22, 1963

the 2000 election was just tying up loose ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #118)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:58 PM

124. agreed!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #102)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:13 PM

125. Great post/information - thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:06 AM

47. K&R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:43 AM

50. I found another sign of a coup when I clicked on the link to the article

 

When you click on the link to the article, the writer, James Fallows, has now changed the title of the article to "5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics" (with "explanation"), which., to my mind, proves there has been a coup in our news media as well as government. Fallows' explanation aptly begins with, "Midnight update"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/5-signs-the-united-states-is-undergoing-a-coup/258904/#.T-fQJW0EP-8.twitter

5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics

(Midnight update: This item went up three hours ago with a more blunt-instrument headline than it should ever have had: "5 Signs the United States is Undergoing a Coup." I used the word "coup" in a particular way in the longer item this was drawn from. Using it in the headline implies things I don't mean. Through the past decade, there has been a radical shift in the "by any means necessary" rules of political combat, as I describe. Previous conservative administrations have nominated previous conservative Justices -- but not radical partisans, happy to overthrow precedent to get to the party-politics result they want. That is the case I mean to make. And I hope the upcoming health care ruling ends up being evidence on the other side.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:58 AM

51. Our political system

is constructed so that such a coup could only take place with the active participation of members of both political parties and the acquiescence of most of the others. To me anyway, the most obvious indication of such a coup is the near dictatorial power of the presidency regarding national security while behaving as though impotent on social and economic policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:12 AM

52. "Is undergoing"? - Fallows' use of present progressive belies the

 

reality that we already went through a bloodless coup in November of 2000.

Oh wait. 'Bloodless,' unless you count the 7,000+ American soldiers and 1,000,000+ Iraqis and AfPaks killed since November 2001.

Better to use the past perfect -- 'has undergone' - in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:24 AM

54. K&R

So how are they pulling this off? I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume its massive amounts of money. Corrupting and influencing peoples opinions and actions all the way down the line.
We live every day with the constant barrage of corporation filtered news dominating virtually every means of reporting. One only has to scratch minimally below the surface on most of the infotainment I see or hear these days to find they left a hell of a lot out of the equation and if it involves big money, big corporations and bad news they may not mention it at all.
My local evening newscast spends about 2 minutes on world events, 4 minutes on state events, 10 minutes on weather and 10 minutes on sports. Located in the middle of all this is anther 10 min chunk devoted exclusively to Wall St and corporate sweet talk. I don't know if other newscasts around the nation are structured in the same way but I imagine many are.
There are no allowances for any news to be reported that could damage corporate profits in any way and the only corporation inspired news I will receive involves which ones to place bets on or which CEO I should fawn the most over.
This what we have created with our thirst for power & material wealth over the advancement of humanity. We can look back and see how it has progressed to the point of dominating our every waking hour and our group thought. We can look forward and see how it will still further advance and perhaps come to the realization that we decide if we want that future for our descendants or if we want to be counted as those who opposed that bleak reality. Cog or log. The choice is ever ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raouldukelives (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:03 AM

57. Massive amt of money and a public that is anesthetized by the TV - and apathy.

My wife just went to visit family in Lowell MA. She was amazed at the stuff her mom and brother were spewing - Faux talking points. They watch it all day. They no longer critically think - and refuse to change their minds when presented with the obvious facts.

Just a tiny dot - but think about the few bright lights of critical thinkers surrounded by the easily influenced masses. The atmosphere in the US is currently perfect for the coup - and TV and radio are major tools. They who control the message control the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raouldukelives (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:19 AM

67. The GOP along with their supporters operates with information like the

 

Germans did in WW2. Again: 'Propaganda of Deception' people would do well to understand what these words mean. The glaringly obvious thing to this is what do you people think Fox is? And there is a hell of a lot more to it than just Fox. Up is down, left is right, and so on with this, ALWAYS. How much more obvious need it all be. Use your owns eyes, common sense even, and read and understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:48 AM

62. Don't forget all the voter suppression and union busting at the state level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:00 PM

71. Just why is it they so utterly RABID when it comes to those voting machines

 

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:38 PM - Edit history (8)

and no VVPAT/VPR ? This is just a part of it. If you can build a simple cash register with an audit trail, you can build a goddamn voting machine with one. If you can build a computer with crypto on it, you can build a voting machine with crypto for the audit lists. SIMPLE

What people need to ask themselves is Why has this even been a question when it comes to these electronic voting machines.

Something else about this, for the electronic voting machines we do have, if some of the fools I have read about cannot operate these machines properly like we have seen done in Ohio and elsewhere, then we have the wrong people counting our votes. They are not qualified. SIMPLE

And those issues were not just about lack of training either. People will act as stupid as they want, if you let them. Those issues in those states were very little to do with just 'stupidity' and not understanding how to operate the machines. And if they WERE, we need new people counting our votes. SIMPLE

In business if people cannot operate computers, they are fired. The business of counting our votes is no different to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:25 AM

68. none of this would be possible without complicity of the corporate media, using our public airwaves

 

to LIE TO US!

Everyone wonders, how did they get away with it?

Well as they were shutting down the recount, they had James Baker on all the TV stations, saying 'they have already counted the ballots, over and over and over'

He painted as if Gore was trying to steal it from Bush, and boy did those angry reactive Republicans run with that.

Did the media question him, make comments afterward like 'uh, no that is what we are all discussing here'

No, they put him on every TV station saying the same lie over and over 'they already counted the ballots, over and over and over again'

They not only let him lie, the catapulted the propaganda for the Bush regime. Some liberal media

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost of Huey Long (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:23 PM

87. The major media in this country are frankly little more than

 

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:22 PM - Edit history (2)

purveyors of propaganda and part of the problem. They are a tool now in a business that has little to do with truth. They are more interested in their message, than fact. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing. SIMPLE

What don't people understand about when the message becomes more important than the truth, it is no longer the NEWS...but something else.

People need to understand what is Power, Information, and Authority. They need to understand what is NEWS, and what is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:26 AM

69. I knew it was a coup when it happened

The selection of George W Bush was no accident or oversight or senior moment. That was deliberate and calculated. It was the culmination of a long planned and implemented coup. And it was done right in our faces.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:48 AM

70. yes, then they were so brazen as to put their PNAC plans on a website for all to read

 

Then along comes 9/11...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost of Huey Long (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:03 PM

72. Yes. The perfect excuse for the PNAC agenda

of becoming the sole Superpower on the planet and holding that spot through military aggression. How convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

74. More like "underwent a coup"

"in progress" implies it could be stopped. It can't. It's over. We lost that battle. The only hope to get the US back is a counter-coup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:30 PM

76. I knew it when the second plane hit. PNAC confirmed it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:39 PM

78. "Underwent" a coup, since it has already happened...

K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:41 PM

84. k&r n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:12 PM

86. I'm not laughing. You could see it happen during 2000.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:39 PM

88. We are living through & witnesses to what will go down in history as the destruction of the U.S.

I can imagine history books 50+ years from now and the lengthy chapters on the destruction of the United States and its causes and the causes of the second GREAT DEPRESSION. IF Obama is reelected and can get his SCOTUS appointments through, we stand a chance of reversing SOME of this. SOME. We still have the marriage of corporations and government to overcome. That MIGHT happen IF we can elect more progressives to Congress and locally, as well as reelect Obama. It will be a limited separation IF all of that happens, but we would see some change in favoring corporations over the rest of us. It wouldn't be as radical as most of us would like to see, but there would be favorable changes in corporate taxes, taxing the 1%, and more.

But if Romney wins.....the SCOTUS will turn even more radically right and generations will be affected. There will be no hope as the oligarchy is favored willy-nilly over the 99%.

This period will be looked at with disdain in history. We stand a good chance of our offspring and subsequent generations reading about the destruction or almost destruction finally reversed by rioting millions globally as the global elite impose their moronic policies destined to help only the global 1% and send the rest of the world into a massive depression.

Man, I could do with not watching this history unravel with millions of right-wing morons cheering it and abetting the power of the traitorous & tyrannous 1% and the politicians they own.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:02 PM

91. Personally, I think that

History will be rewritten, so as to show that none of what really happened, happened.

The coup has already taken over, and they have already been trying to rewrite history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:32 PM

93. Dick Cheney's wife is writing history books

 

The whole Bush cabal has 'written' books with hilarious recreations of actual events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:29 PM

112. They've already done it with Reagan

A mediocre rightwing hack who left office with a middling approval rating amid Iran-Contra and a deficit explosion is now regarded by the media as some kind of beloved figure who deserves to stand alongside Lincoln and Washington as one of our greatest presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:07 PM

96. There are days I believe this country is dying

And I fear the fall will come within the next decade or two at the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:41 PM

101. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:08 PM

120. There appears to be a huge consensus that it's all over...

...and that Democracy is dead, so what do we do about it? If there is nothing that can be done using the System, then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joycejnr (Reply #120)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:10 PM

121. what indeed? I think all of us who are aware have much to ponder - and even more to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joycejnr (Reply #120)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:00 AM

130. That was the point of Occupy Wall Street.

But as you can see, the success of OWS was limited. People were galvanized and energized, but not enough changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:54 PM

123. Great Read

The Filthy Rich have won a lot of battles

The genius of their plan was convincing the Republican base to go along with the hostile takeover, and also convincing the Republican base that they should blame any economic fallout on Democrats.

Everything's declined into nothing: housing, manufacturing, healthcare, our infrastructure, our schools, because greedy Filthy Rich People want it ALL.

And they have eager, willing little helpers in the Republican base, who help them shovel the dough into their limousines and whom the Filthy Rich bite whenever they feel like it. Then those bitten little Republicans curse Obama and liberals.

The little Republicans rejoice over unhealthy food, unsafe schools, houses that burn and people who are gunned down on mere suspicion. They love to see others get hurt, get punished, as if they themselves are completely above reproach.

They love rage and drama and enemies and bigotry, and a mean old Gawd who will whisk them snugly away at the Rapture but leave the rest of us burning to death because we said "Happy Holidays" and O'Reilly said that was War.

More people are waking up from the stupor. It's just a little late.

But the rich win battles. History doesn't always show the Filthy Rich People as the final victors. They get hanged or beheaded and then replaced by Other Filthy Rich People.


And so on.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:22 PM

126. Fallows has a habbit

of being very very right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread