To Those thinking of not voting in November.

[Cal33]

Bush already tried to make a dictatorship out of our country. He didn't
succeed. If another Neocon Administration gets into power, you can be
sure they'll be better prepared the second time around. We are THAT CLOSE
to becoming a dictatorship!! Would you want to live in a dictatorship??

With a Democratic Administration, we at least have a better chance of
evolving into a more decent democracy -- depending on how successful we are
at fighting to control the greed of a Corporate America gone mad! It's
top-heavy with sociopaths!

Corporate America and the Neocons are One! The Military/Industrial Complex
Eisenhower warned us about some 50 years ago IS HERE! TODAY! NOW! Don't you
see it? And Obama is fighting it -- and against the might of Corporate America.
He needs all the help he can get. Sure, he has made mistakes. Who hasn't?
He still needs all the help he can get.

We can't afford to play footsies with our over-wrought feelings of having
been "betrayed" by the Democratic leadership, and hence, our wish for
vengeance against them. THERE IS NO MORE TIME FOR SUCH FRIVOLITIES! As
said above, all we need is one more Neocon Administration, and our shaky
democracy will have gone up in smoke. And very likely we'd be living under
a Neocon Fascist government.

You know how corporate execs. continue to make money big time? They do it
partially at the expense of their employees, and partially through screwing
the rest of the American people with their tricks, deceit and corruption. Most
of their employees haven't had a raise in years! They're made to feel that
they are lucky to still have a job at all. As for the executives' high salaries,
bonuses, etc., well ... that's a different story!

The same thing will happen to our entire nation, if the Neocons should take
over. They'll be the masters, and we'll be their servants. If you still
should have any doubts about this, just look at the way they are treating their
employees.

A high percentage of Corporate executives, like many high-level Neocon
politicians, as well as politicians of all stripes, are sociopaths. These are
sick people! And sick people should not be in positions of responsibility where
they have authority over the lives and livelihood of thousands, if not millions,
of people. Being sick, they can't help themselves from wreaking havoc and
destruction -- as Bush, Cheney & Co. have been doing for 8 years. Unless we are
out of our minds, we should help to vote them out of office -- not vote them in!

Hey guys! I understand your hurt feelings. I have them too, on and off.
But this is no time to toy around with the idea of not voting in November,
or perhaps, even voting "Republican" -- out of spite. This is suicidal!
If carried out, it's an act we'll regret.

In a few days there will be a follow-up message: "Neocons and Sociopathy." It is
intended to help explain what sociopathy is, and how Neocons (more than most) fit
into that picture.

[superduperfarleft]

1. Someone's been listening to too much Rage Against the Machine. n/t

[readmoreoften]

20. Huh? Rage Against the Machine don't give a shit about voting for Democrats.

[superduperfarleft]

37. I was referring more to the blathering of their fans than the band themselves.

But if you prefer, I'll amend my post to say that the OP sounded like a pseudo-intellectual leftist parody that Southpark would write.

[Cal33]

42. I thought all I'm doing is to persuade as many Dems. as

possible to vote.

As for "the OP sounded like a pseudo-intellectual leftist parody that Southpark would write,"
what do you think a genuine intellectual leftist would sound like?

[superduperfarleft]

44. Probably something a little more substantial than

"It's the corporations, mannnnnn."

[Jakes Progress]

68. Dupe.

[Cal33]

80. There will probably be something a lot more substantial in

the follow-up message within the next few days.

[mmonk]

2. You really think people here would vote republican?

[Cal33]

9. I've seen such messages. Maybe they were just letting out their

frustrations. Fortunately, there were only a few. But, you're most likely right.
Okay, I've edited the heading.

[mmonk]

16. No problem.

My intention wasn't to change your OP.

[LostinVA]

30. I have NEVER seen a DUer say they are voting Republican

Not an actual, non-troll DUer. EVER.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Link?

[dflprincess]

83. Only for the ones that put a "D" after their name

a lot of people here would vote for them.

[YOY]

3. So he's fighting the MIC! Of course he is! It's just so Obvious!!!

Damn my lying DC eyes.

and news flash: Nobody here would vote Republican. I can bet some DLCers might ponder it if they were given some "EXTREMIST" candidate on the D side...of course they'll never admit it...but it it walks like a duck...

[Cal33]

92. Many corporations are a part of the MIC, and they support the

Neoons -- for profit and power, of course.

[zipplewrath]

4. Prove it

Corporate America and the Neocons are One! The Military/Industrial Complex
Eisenhower warned us about some 50 years ago IS HERE! TODAY! NOW! Don't you
see it? And Obama is fighting it -- and against the might of Corporate America.

Prove it. Don't give me "he's not as bad as Bush". Show me how he is "fighting Corporate America". He may not be as enthusatic, but he's on a trip right now to "counter the impression that he is anti-business". I'm not sure a guy that appoints Geitner as Sec. Treasury can be seen as a major "fighter". He may not be corporate americas first choice, but that hardly makes him Robin Hood either.

I'm not planning on voting GOP, but I do think the democratic party, and the country, would be better off if the corporate dems, and the blue dogs, and the DLC would go back to the GOP where they came from and move the "center" to the left.

[27inCali]

7. do you think the MIC want us to end our combat role in Iraq?

To set a deadline for doing the same in Afghanistan. I don't agree with all of it but right now it's Us against the Corporations and Obama is more a friend than enemy to us on that point. I don't see how tying his hands with a Congress full of knuckle-dragging Republicons does anything to make good Progressive legislation more likely. Rather, if the Left shows up and votes and we retain the House and Senate, we will have more Progressive legislation over the next couple of years maybe it'll be Climate Change, Immigration, Public Option, a lot of it will be milquetoast and annoyingly centrist but I guess we'll never know now, the Left's supposed option is setting up Obama to be impeached by Congress and no more reform of any kind for at least two years, like the people can afford to wait any longer. I don't see how the answer to the shitty situation is : make it shittier for the fuck of it, which seems to be the ultimate argument from the hard Left right now. I'm not feeling the Let's-give-it-back-to-the-Republicons-that'll-show-em! strategy. It just smells of defeatism, victimism. Victims aren't going to topple the MIC.

[zipplewrath]

33. Please tell me what the deadline for ending our role in Afghanistan is

Because the president said there wasn't one. Only a start date for withdrawl. Them MIC is unimpressed by such dates. You'll note that the MIC will still have a hand in Iraq for years, long after the Army is gone. The state department is creating their own army there, complete with armored vehicles, blackhawks helicopters, and tactical strike teams.

As I say, prove it.

Oh, and go buy some periods. You could use them.

[Cal33]

93. "Prove it." I will, in a few days. You know, I do agree with you that

Obama should never have had left-overs from the Bush Administration in his cabinet.
Nor should he have so many advisers that are right-leaning. I wonder if he is
obsessed with the idea of "bi-partisanship." It can't be done with Neocons. They
haven't reached the maturity level of give and take. They're at the small-child
level of "take" only. But, unlike the small child, they can no longer grow. They
are stuck at this level for the rest of their lives.

[DirkGently]

5. I think you misunderstand those you seek to address

It's not "hurt feelings," and I doubt anyone here's contemplating voting Republican.

But many people will insist that leaders who want their vote lead accordingly. That's the only language politicians of any stripe understand. No one who wants anything from any leader or any party or group should pledge unconditional loyalty. That's a guarantee your voice will be heard only to the extent it's convenient.

Want support? Do right.

[Cal33]

6. Much of what you say is true. I agree in principle with your point

about unconditional loyalty. In practice, we can threaten any politician with
not voting for him/her, if s/he doesn't measure up. But, under our present circumstances,
we can't do that so easily -- especially not with the presidential elections in 2012.
The consequences of losing to the Neocons is something too horrible to contemplate.

The best we can do now is to voice disapproval to our incumbent official, and if deemed
necessary, to vote for a new and unknown candidate who "promises the most?" in the
primaries.

[kiva]

11. Considering most primaries are over, most of us

know who our candidates will be in the various races. For example, my Representative is an incumbent. She voted for the war funding yesterday. She will not get my vote.

Voicing disapproval to politicians is about as effective as telling toddlers they are engaging in inappropriate behavior - without consequences it is useless.

[Cal33]

105. Yes, consequences are necessary, especially when dealing

with Neocons. They can be made to do something by being paid for it, or through
the fear of punishment. It was Pelosi's great mistake to have put impeachment
of Bush/Cheney & Co. off the table right from the start (Jan. 2007). No other
action could have encouraged them more to continue in their deceitful, dirty and
aggressive ways.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Fuck 'em.

Let them eat shit and die.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Replacing neo-cons with neo-libs is like replacing strychnine with arsenic.

Strychnine is faster but the results are the same.

I always vote. I'll vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot..even if I have to write one in.

[sendero]

12. Exactly..

... who cares? I'm not voting for a Repug, and lifting a finger for Obama either.

[Cal33]

13. The word "Repug" expresses your contempt for them. So,

if you are not voting for them, how about going one step further and vote against them?
Each vote actually has a double effect: the one you voted for gains one point, and the
one you did not vote for loses one point. We just can't afford to have another "Repug"
administration, can we?

[YOY]

15. There's this thing...it's called "representation"

Desperately voting for a party's candidates without using one's own standards and self-interests only promises a delay to the inevitable instead of returning the balance from far right and right to right and left.

If that means the destruction of the system then the corporation boards who bought both candidates had better realize that they are direly outnumbered and regardless of "right" and "left" desperate starving poor people will kill well-fed wealthy people when they out number them enough.

Not advocating it. Just foretelling the obvious.

[Cal33]

18. The first people to have a written history some 7,000 years ago

were the Mesopotamians (ancestors of the present-day Iraqis). From that time until
our Revolution of 1776, every nation on earth had hereditary kings or emperors as
rulers. These royalty with the help of their nobility controlled and owned not
only the land, but also the people living in it. Royalty and nobility formed
less than 1% of the population, but they owned everything - including the people.

It would be fair to say that human beings have had far more experience with
dictatorship than with democracy. For the most part of human history, it has
always been the few who controlled and owned the majority.

Our nation was among the first ones to start out with the notion of equal rights
for all. Switzerland was even earlier than we were, but being a small nation, their
influence on others was not significant.

Coming to the present time, corporations are doing their best to reverse the
situation and trying to return to the old days of privilege for the
few -- with themselves being among the privileged, of course. Corporate executives
are driven by greed for profit, and lust for the power that comes with profits.
And they don't give a hoot how they come by these profits. If people must suffer
and die, so be it, as long as others are suffering and dying, and the executives
are making the profit.

And they are making a come-back. And that's the situation we're facing at the
present time.

Do we want such people holding positions of responsibility in our country? They
know they are not wanted, but they (the few) are trying to get their way anyhow.
It has worked for 7 millennia in the past, why can't they succeed in reverting to
the "good old days"?

This is their political goal. And they are smart enough to have convinced roughly
half of the American people that they are right. Since they own 90% of the news
media, among other things, it is relatively easy for them to brainwash the masses
with their barrage of non-stop propaganda and lies. They have, on the whole,
been quite successful so far.

Our job is to get as many of them out of office as possible, and out of power.

[Ignis]

73. Oh FFS, read a history book or an anthropology journal.

From that time {7000 BCE} until
our Revolution of 1776, every nation on earth had hereditary kings or emperors as
rulers. These royalty with the help of their nobility controlled and owned not
only the land, but also the people living in it. Royalty and nobility formed
less than 1% of the population, but they owned everything - including the people.

You obviously haven't studied the history of a single culture outside the West. Please do so before you make sweeping, ignorant statements that attempt to generalize the entire breadth of human history to suit your rhetorical goals.

Because as it stands, the stupid fucking BURNS. :hi:

[Cal33]

89. You haven't read carefully what I wrote. I said, "The first

people to have a WRITTEN HISTORY were the Mesopotamians. {The Egyptians
developed theirs a millenium later, and China in another millenium.

The Mayans of Central America were the only ones who possibly had a
had a written language, but the Mayans mysteriously disappeared. Their
written language never spread to the rest of the Americas, North or
South.

The rest of the world had no WRITTEN HISTORY, because they had no
WRITTEN LANGUAGE, until they learned it from those who did.

In Europe the Greeks and Romans learned about written language from the
Phoenicians, a sea-trading Semitic tribe. The Semites, of course, got
their written language from the Mesopotamians. Greece and Rome civilized
the rest of Europe -- the Scandinavian countries finally adopted the Roman
alphabet just a thousand years ago. They were the last among the Europeans
to learn to write.

So, the Mesopotamians were the originators of the written language
for all of Western/Southern Asia and Europe.

In East Asia China was the first nation to develop the written language,
and it spread to the rest of that area of the continent.

The Egyptian hieroglyphics somehow did not spread as far. Today it
is used only among scholars].

Did you really expect me to put in something like the above in a message
that I originally wrote with the purpose of urging Democrats to vote in
November? Of course I had to write in sweeping statements in order to
be brief. Not to do so would mean to be paying too much attention to
details, and at the expense of the main point.

If you are tough when judging others, begin by being just as tough when
dealing with yourself. I said some "7,000 years ago." I did not say
{7000 BCE} -- which would make it 9,000 years ago.

[Ignis]

94. If I'm so unbearably thick, you should have no trouble supporting this claim:

From that time until
our Revolution of 1776, every nation on earth had hereditary kings or emperors as
rulers.

As Judi mentioned below, you've completely ignored just about every indigenous people in this sweeping (and false) generalization.

But I'm quite willing to be proven wrong. Sure, I'll be grumpy that I wasted so many years studying history and anthropology, but that's a small price to pay for the Truth.

Have at it, professor! :hi:

[Cal33]

95. Yes, I did ignore just about every indigenous people. I wasn't

even thinking about them at all. Sorry about that. I was only thinking
of the habits and customs of people from the Old World, or descendants
of people from the Old World. And there is some 7,000 years of written
history of their doings - some of which is frightening and horrifying.

I've written to Judi in a later post that I knew little of the history
of indigenous Americans, and that I was going to learn more about it -
beginning now.

[Ignis]

96. Well, that's great to hear!

Here are a few links to get you started:

http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2009/June/20090617110824wrybakcuh0.5986096.html
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Influence_on_the_United_States
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/constitutions.htm

[Cal33]

97. Thanks for the links. nt

[Judi Lynn]

90. It's a searing pain you don't forget easily. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

88. Did you forget about the Native Americans who inspired the creation of this government?

Here's a tiny, simple description of The Six Nations:

The Six Nations:
Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth

The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois <1> Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish anew a government truly dedicated to all life's liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years. <2>

http://www.ratical.org.nyud.net:8090/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/fig31.gif
On June 11, 1776 while the question of independence was being debated, the visiting Iroquois chiefs were formally invited into the meeting hall of the Continental Congress. There a speech was delivered, in which they were addressed as "Brothers" and told of the delegates' wish that the "friendship" between them would "continue as long as the sun shall shine" and the "waters run." The speech also expressed the hope that the new Americans and the Iroquois act "as one people, and have but one heart."<18> After this speech, an Onondaga chief requested permission to give Hancock an Indian name. The Congress graciously consented, and so the president was renamed "Karanduawn, or the Great Tree." With the Iroquois chiefs inside the halls of Congress on the eve of American Independence, the impact of Iroquois ideas on the founders is unmistakable. History is indebted to Charles Thomson, an adopted Delaware, whose knowledge of and respect for American Indians is reflected in the attention that he gave to this ceremony in the records of the Continental Congress.<19> Artwork by John Kahionhes Fadden.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

http://www.calendarclub.com.nyud.net:8090/AmazonImages/201000008332.jpg

[Cal33]

91. I must say that my knowledge in this area is sorely lacking.

I'll begin educating myself as of now. And thanks for the tip. :o)

[Individualist]

22. +1

[Cal33]

64. I'd vote for the same type of person you do.

[Cal33]

98. Luckily, my senators and congressman are neither Neocon

nor Neolib.

[Curmudgeoness]

14. If you do not vote in November, you ARE voting for the opposition.

Or at least you are facilitating a win by the Reps.

[Cal33]

19. Yes. I am of the same opinion.

[readmoreoften]

21. You need a math lesson. 0 and +1 are not the same numbers.

[LWolf]

24. Math can be inconvenient for some.

[Cal33]

32. I was pretty good at math in school.

I think the way I've calculated is correct. Zero doesn't enter the picture.

[LWolf]

36. Sure it does.

When a registered voter doesn't vote, he has added zero votes to the voting totals. Elections are decided by votes, not zeros.

A vote is not a vote until cast. Until then, it's just a potential.

If you'd like to capture potential votes, the idea would be to find out why they aren't being cast, and address those issues.

It's not about brow-beating potential voters into agreeing with you, or doing what you tell them to do. It's about giving them something they will vote FOR, rather than against.

[Cal33]

38. Reply to LWolf

L: When a registered voter doesn't vote, he has added zero votes to the voting totals. Elections are decided by votes, not zeros.

C: When a registered voter doesn't vote, his party candidate loses one vote. This helps
the opposition.

L: A vote is not a vote until cast. Until then, it's just a potential.
If you'd like to capture potential votes, the idea would be to find out why they aren't being cast, and address those issues.

C: Potential is an abstract word that can be twisted around to suit different purposes. Here's a practical
and concrete example where no ambiguity exists: Say a senate is divided evenly, 50-50. When one senator changes sides, the senate is now 49-51. One person makes a change, and the difference between the parties is now 2. If the senator does not vote, the difference is 1. But there is still a difference, whether he votes
or not. Are you now convinced, in this case, that zero doesn't exist.

L: It's not about brow-beating potential voters into agreeing with you, or doing what you tell them to do.
It's about giving them something they will vote FOR, rather than against.

C: I don't believe in brow-beating either. I believe in persuading and influencing through reasoning.

About giving them something that they will vote for: Here the news media play an important role. 90%
of them are Republican-owned. They just play down or even simply not publish what would be perceived of
as positive by the public. Obama has done a lot of things that the public doesn't even know about. The
Neocons are taking full advantage of this, you can be sure. This is part and parcel of Neocon brainwashing.
And the Neocons are the ones who put up 100% resistance against everything Obama has tried to achieve,
making it as difficult for him as they possibly can.

Just google: "90 positive accomplishments by President Obama in his first 6 months." Article 1. (He did
more than FDR or LBJ during the same period of time). On the other hand, his failures have been blown up, both in frequency and in degree.

About voting against: There are times when voting against something is just as important as voting for.
Perhaps even more important. And this is one of them. If the Neocons win in November, and in 2012, we
will quite likely be living under a Neocon Fascist government within a few years. All our Constitutional guarantees will have been removed. I don't think we'll be able to write as freely on the Internet as we are doing now.

What do you think?

[LWolf]

40. Nobody "loses" a vote that wasn't cast.

They didn't have that vote to begin with. Counting chickens before they hatch is not exactly good practice, or accurate math.

Votes are earned, not owned. The only votes that belong to any particular candidate, or party, are those they actually get.

Want more votes? Earn them. That's what I think.

I'm 50 years old. I've voted against plenty of things in my life. I'll probably vote against more in the future. That doesn't mean my vote is owned by, or owed to, anyone. I'm not doing the lesser of two evils vote.

What do I think? I think I already live under a neoliberal fascist government. I think some Constitutional guarantees have already been removed, and others have been warped and twisted to benefit that government. I don't think trying to scare voters into voting for Dolores Umbridge to avoid Voldemort is ethical.

I'm a teacher. I know that his failure to allow positive change, and his insistence on implementing harmful change, in the arena of public education has not been "blown up."

I also don't see his health insurance "reform" as a positive accomplishment. Neither is his escalation of the war on terror. I could go on. These things aren't "blown up." They matter. Apparently, they matter more to some than to you. :shrug:

That said, I'll be voting to re-elect my Democratic Senator in November. Ron Wyden has earned a decent grade from me, and therefore gets my support and vote.

It's highly likely that I will be supporting the Democratic challenger to my Republican Congressman, Greg Walden. Unless that challenger turns out to be a neoliberal. That's an uphill battle that will probably be lost...this round. I hope to erode his lead every two years until he's finally ousted.

It's not my votes this November that are at risk. It's the 2012 presidential election that is in question. At this point, I can only hope a strong left-leaning candidate rises to give Obama a primary challenge. We'll see.

[Cal33]

77. In spite of our seeming differences regarding voting (I think you're

talking more about theory, and I more about the practical side). I do
agree with most of what you said about the type of candidates you'd vote
for. I'd like to see both Pelosi and Reid replaced, and the Blue Dog
congressmen kicked out. I wouldn't mind having a stronger and more
left-leaning presidential candidate in 2012 either. But I'd vote
for Obama if he is the only Democratic candidate -- having another
Neocon president at this time would mean death for our already very
shaky democracy.

[Curmudgeoness]

39. Fine, I suck at math. But I know beyond any reasonable doubt...

that if everyone who would vote for a Democrat stayed home, we would have no Democrats in office. I really don't care if they win by a hair or by a landslide, it only matters to me that the Repubs do not regain power.

[LWolf]

41. In that case,

perhaps you should discover the reasons why some voters stay home and address those reasons. Give them something to vote FOR, rather than against.

[Curmudgeoness]

46. Wish I could. But voting for or voting against is not very different

in my eyes. Either way, I am looking to have the country go in the right direction, even if we make a few wrong turns on the way. If I head from Kansas to the Pacific Ocean, and end up going the long way there, at least I did not end up at the Atlantic Ocean. And that is where I could be if I just sit out an election.

[Cal33]

99. "Voting for or voting against is not very different..." True. It's a

play on words. The result is the same.

[Cal33]

25. True, but + 1 and -1 belong in the same class of numbers.

I think not voting for Obama is a loss for him. It's a -1 for Obama, not 0.

[kenny blankenship]

27. It becomes a bit easier to see, when reading these "Clap harder or else!" posts

how the US could be so deeply damaged that its govt, and a significant % of its people, actually believes it can bludgeon people on the other side of the world into liking us and into wanting to be like us.

"I have nothing to offer you but abuse, lies, and bullying, but goddamn you if you stubbornly refuse my offer!"

[Individualist]

23. Fail.

[LostinVA]

31. 100% not true, and i don't believe in voting by coercison

We aren't fascists. Yet.

[Cal33]

35. I don't believe in coercion either. But I do believe in

the presentation of facts and persuasion through reasoning. Have you
noticed that Neocons are mostly not capable of reasoning? They seem
to be stuck with the talking points they have been programmed with.
They are more or less like robots.

[Liberal In Texas]

34. Yes, stayinig home = voting repukes in.

They're counting on their obstruction for everything to demoralize the base and make Dems look like they do nothing to the "swing" voters. It looks like they're winning in the demoralizing campaign.

I'm not greatly happy with not getting the things accomplished I thought we would, and really unhappy about continuing these occupations. BUT, the alternative would be far worse.

The only way we're going to effect change we want will be from the bottom up; getting involved locally in the party and working for candidates that we agree with, from the school boards and city councils to congress.

[chillspike]

17. Win or Lose

The truth will soon out, the conservatives will be destroyed or destroy themselves and then the world can finally begin to clean up the mess they've made of it.

[UTUSN]

26. See this input:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8836455

[LWolf]

43. Literacy issues make that post painful to read. nt

[TheKentuckian]

28. You can't order an austerity commission, order extra-judicial murder, maintain an unconstitutional

army, ramp up the war machine, maintain the Patriot Act, and shovel money at the corporations and strike much fear of Republicans in my heart and the pushing of this meme is hardening mine against your sentiment, to be honest.

The more I feel bullied and threatened the less inclined I am to comply and frankly the more I distrust the message and those being supported by those spreading it. I've been going to the polls for Democrats for years now and volunteered before then and never once did I have to be motivated by these hamfisted tactics.

This lame pitch every day is not working, nor are the list of accomplishments, and apparently promises of better are too far fetched to even make more than the most broad, general, and typically far off allusions toward.

We live in interesting times which are not fitting for a bunch of Mickey Mouse, get along to get along, and better than nothing at best and we don't even need to get into at worst.

This is our land and it's resources and power are ours by right and the status quo is theft. It is the destitution of our liberties and to keep playing along is an abdication of any responsibility to ourselves as well as the future out of calculated cowardice.

Nope. I don't think I can buy much of any of it. Too much hollow in the tone.

This game does not lead to a free and prosperous people, we are being squeezed and discarded. Sheep to the slaughter either way is what it smells like to me.

[BzaDem]

29. Whatever. Should Republicans take power, you will quickly learn.

Sometimes it takes reality hitting one smack in the head for someone to see the light.

[ima_sinnic]

48. Reality has already smacked many in the head in the form of

"an austerity commission, extra-judicial murder, an unconstitutional army, ramping up of the war machine, maintaining the Patriot Act, and shoveling money at the corporations," to paraphrase the post above. Add to that, mandated "health" insurance with no appreciable regulation (and no fight whatsoever for a public option), and I'd say not only has reality smacked people upside the head, it has gobsmacked them. In fact, a republican administration hardly seems worse by comparison.

[BzaDem]

51. That just means you have no imagination.

Think whatever you want about an austerity commission, shoveling money at corporations, etc. Then triple it under Republican control. Don't like corporate subsidies? How about halving the corporate tax rate? How about eliminating it, funded by a complete repeal of SS and Medicare?

At some point, you will be forced to realize there is a big difference, likely after a huge amount of self-inflicted political pain. Eventually, the survival instinct FORCES people to be rational. It is just a matter of time.

[ima_sinnic]

53. yeah, right--we can go slowly, or we can go quickly

going slowly is a LOT better, right. Kind of like removing a bandaid slowly is a lot better than ripping it off quickly, right?

as far as eliminating the corporate tax rate, funded by a complete repeal of SS and Medicare--afaik, it's on the horizon. We have an appointed republican "deficit commission" headed by people who hate SS. I wonder why those particular people were appointed by a Democratic president? Why not forward-thinking Democrats?
I guess the notion of eliminating the cap on SS contributions, which would easily take care of most of the "problem," isn't fascist enough--no, we have to have people like Alan Simpson make "recommendations" and take months and months to do it.

meh. get back to me when we really do have "Democrats" in charge, and not wolves in Democrats' clothing. In the meantime, no pain, no gain, right? Watch voter reaction to the way "Democrats" have handled things. It ain't gonna be pretty.

[BzaDem]

58. What's more interesting is the way these "progressives" react to Republican policies.

Pass the popcorn.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Ain't my first rodeo pumpkin pie. I'd say the same thing the "pragmatic" "centrist" "progressives"

to take their little threats to heart too.

We all can play my way or the highway. I'm no more captured with nowhere to go than the most tittering Reagan Democrat.

If they are so worried about Republicans gaining power then they might want to reevaluate their bargaining posture. I think the "redcoats are coming" act is a fucking rouse, "moderate", "sensible", "centrist", "pragmatic" "progressives" don't give a shit about Republicans because they swallow their long held policies and positions like fine champaign. This is all just a scheme to establish corporate right wingery in both parties and to diffuse any and all efforts to effect structural reform.

One side rams the ship into icebergs the other arranges a band and keeps the "small people" busy rearranging the deck chairs and complementing the musical arrangements while the wealthy take off in the lifeboats with our last few coins and any heirlooms we may have on us.

[BzaDem]

52. Even if everything you are saying is true, so what?

Even if the Democratic party is as bad as you say it is, how would it be better to pick the greater of two evils? The Democrats who lose will just laugh at those on the "left" who voted them out of office. They will get jobs as corporate lackeys making 10 times what they made as a congressperson.

The politicans who lose elections do not lose anything. The people that lose are the "progressives." Don't like that we haven't raised taxes on corporations? How about an elimination of the corporate tax rate? What about cutting taxes on the rich by 10%, funded by raising taxes on the poor? For any policy that you claim is bad, you can always come up with a policy that is much worse that Republicans will enact.

I'm not really trying to persuade you of anything. I'm just saying that eventually, your survival instinct will kick in and you will be forced to vote for your own self interest (whether you like it or not). It's just a question of how much political pain you heap onto yourself before that happens.

[ima_sinnic]

54. oh, the old "we have nowhere else to go" argument, eh?

just vote Democratic and shut up, because we have nobody else to vote for?

I think you're in for a shock.

[BzaDem]

57. Oh, I think someone's in for a shock

... but it isn't me. Nader voters were saying the same shit. Then 90% of them abandoned him in 2004. People learn.

:hi:

[ima_sinnic]

59. 2012 ain't gonna be 2004

In 2004, voters had not been "promised" "hope and change."
In 2004, voters had not mandated change--a historic opportunity, with virtually the entire country on board--only to have the rug pulled out from under them as one group after another was thrown under the bus. In 2004, voters had not seen their health care sold out for 30 pieces of silver behind closed doors. In 2004, voters had no disillusionment about the "fierce advocate" they'd voted for 4 years earlier.

In 2004, voters were still under the illusion that voting for Democrats really meant something. People were united in trying to rid the country of Bush/Cheney. This isn't going to be 2004.

[BzaDem]

65. Says one of the 13% of liberal democrats who don't approve of Obama

who happens to have the highest Democratic approval ratings of any president since JFK.

You take yourself way too seriously. You are in a very small minority, in relative and absolute terms.

[superduperfarleft]

72. "You are in a very small minority, in relative and absolute terms."

So why does your crowd constantly act like we're going to single-handedly throw the election to the Republicans if we don't stop saying mean things about Obama?

[BzaDem]

78. Bank robbers are a small minority. That doesn't mean we stop telling people not to rob banks.

And no one is complaining that people are simply criticizing Obama. Strawman of the day.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Heh...better give me more to lose or present a more credible threat to my literal life and "freedom"

It's not a least bad choice for me at this stage, it is a fix the structural problems or allow them to continue to degrade at whatever pace.

I'm no longer capable of putting substantial weight into less bad. I've been doing less bad my whole life and it isn't getting less bad nor do I believe in permanent majority theories. At some point the Republicans will win again and when they do we will have pushed them into Reich wing absurdity by co.continuously absorbing their positions.

My pain tolerance is good as it gets and my view is long. A hundred years of "pragmatic progress" will take us to the same place as seventy years of batshit regressive "progress".

The issue is to counter the direction not to slow the pace and make it more racially and gender diverse.

The differences are in detail and inclusiveness not structure and the structure is the root problem.

[BzaDem]

66. You are assuming the structure will ever change even in the next thousand years.

It is amazing how many people think that just because they want something that they are going to get it. Most people learn the difference between wanting and getting by age 5.

[TheKentuckian]

76. I'm not assuming a thing. There is little room in these times for assumptions

We have the now, this is our time and I do not choose to accept the unsustainable and the wickedly cruel and absurd.

I expect to scrap like hell to even struggle toward what I want. I expect a hell of a tough row to hoe to get what is baseline needed.

You can dig your own hole and lay down to die if you want. I'd encourage you to stand up and fight to build a better world and to leave this a better place than it was left to you rather than actively fighting to preserve what you know to be destructive, irresponsible, and insane in order to hopefully get a bone and a pat on the head instead of hurtful kicks from your masters.

Be a willing, obedient, slave to the machine all you like but don't think it makes you wise or practical it makes you a weak, pitiful, irresponsible, whorish slave. A house servant at best.

If that ain't you then don't put that glass slipper on your foot.

I could give a crap if you think I'm less than a five year old. I'd rather be fool and alive than wise as Solomon and quit and dead in my soul, desperately trying to make everyone join you in resignation to a bitter fate and an endless game.

The thing is your words aren't wise, not really. They are pitiful and they have the seeds of the death of what makes humans great. Every breath a celebration of coming death and hopelessness and every effort a vain effort to seek the cold comfort of embracing entropy.

No thanks, I don't wanna grow up, I'm an FDR kid.

[BzaDem]

79. Good luck with that.

I actually expect you will capitulate to reality should there be another Nader like event (whether or not you ever admit it publicly or swear otherwise at the present time). YMMV.

[TheKentuckian]

81. Hope your bookie gives good odds. I'll write my own name in if I have to

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Name three people not voting in November

That's not rhetorical.

Name just 3

Or admit your post in inflammatory bullshit.

[Iggo]

47. Don't vote? Don't bitch.

[Forkboy]

49. I'm not going to vote and I'm going to bitch, just because I hate that saying.

:evilgrin:

[Iggo]

55. .

B-)

[Greyhound]

56. Yargle bargle blarrrgh!!!

Be afraid, be very afraid...
:kick: & U

[Tailormyst]

61. Oooga Booga

Dems get liberals to vote by shaking the scary conservative stick at them and Conservatives do the same by inciting fear of liberals in their base. I think the majority of people here are smarter then that.

One other thing: When is the time? When is it too much? When will we know that they have gone TOO far?

This sort of thinking on all sides have allowed the wealthy and powerful to fleece this country's wealth while distracting us with fear and propaganda.

[EFerrari]

62. Has no one on this board ever heard of positive reinforcement?

lol

[Forkboy]

63. Only stupid people think about positive reinforcement!

:freak:

[superduperfarleft]

71. What, "Vote for me or you're a fucking teabagging moron" doesn't make a good campaign slogan?

[EFerrari]

75. "There was no mistaking that invitation."

Nick Danger, Radio TV Dinners

lol

[Jakes Progress]

69. Well. If you think about it.

And mind you, I've never voted republican in my life and can't see myself doing so.

But if you think about it, the only time when Democrats act like Democrats is when republicans are in office. When bush was in there, we were all a bunch of hot liberals. But put a Democrat in the white house and he can feed you shit and tell you it's ice cream. Democrats begin supporting the legacy dreams of ronald reagan. Democrats begin siding with corporations. Democrats begin bashing unions. Democrats begin telling some people to just wait for their rights. Democrats start making excuses and excusing republican criminals.

One thing. Electing a Democrat sure as hell didn't give us a Democratic leadership. Just sayin'.

[KeepCongressBlue]

70. I think that everyone needs to vote

I think that its your responsibility once you are 18 to register and vote. It is your duty as an american citizen.

[Ignis]

74. In Australia, that's true. In America, we're free to choose to stay home.

For good or ill....

[Jakes Progress]

85. That's just silly.

But do you have any real point to make about what I wrote.

[Cal33]

109. Everything has a price, including being encouraged to have a

mind of your own. That's the price liberals pay for not having to walk in lock-step.

[w8liftinglady]

82. oh..I'll be voting..the governor of Texas is critical-I meet him this weekend

[Jakes Progress]

86. I agree about White, but

I've got to ask him if he supports the president's attack on teacher and America's schools.

[mitchtv]

84. I will vote for mostly dems Senate, House but

state senator , I will write in, I don't vote for phobes no matter what party

[KakistocracyHater]

87. I've had it with these threatening idiots-you're talking to the wrong end of

the Democratic Party, go say this to the Senators & House Reps: if THEY quit acting like Republicans RIGHT NOW & IMMEDIATELY BEGIN LOYALLY ENACTING THE DEM PATRY'S STATED GOALS, they just might let those nasty Republicans in. Otherwise, stfu-do NOT try to hold me hostage, do NOT threaten me.

[BzaDem]

100. Reality doesn't change just because you have "had it."

Whether you want to be "held hostage" or "threatened" is really besides the point. Reality is reality, even if you don't like (or even hate) said reality.

Democrats who lose elections just get much higher paying jobs in the private sector later. They literally would laugh in your face if you told them that their election loss was somehow a "punishment" to them. Meanwhile, their Republican replacement would be busily making life miserable for YOU -- not the Democrat you voted out. In fact, the Republican that you aided and abetted would be passing laws to HELP the likely rich Democrat you voted out -- at YOUR expense.

Just because this truth makes you uncomfortable or angry doesn't make it not the truth.

[Cal33]

101. In a few days there is going to be a follow-up to this post,

called "Neocons and Sociopathy." Theory, facts and examples will be presented, in showing how
Neocons and Sociopathy tie in so well together. It's a long post, I may have to break it up
into 2, or even 3 parts.

[KakistocracyHater]

104. I hope 1 of those chapters is titled Cognitive Dissonance

both parties have some members who have it, it ennables the really nasty stuff.

[LostinVA]

106. +1

[Cal33]

108. There will probably be a relatively short mention on

cognitive dissonance. The post would be too long if I were to expand on it.

[KakistocracyHater]

102. that's rich, you must be a member of the Other Right

w hen adding in the Stupak into healthcare potentially ALREADY CAN make my life "miserable", talk your way out of that 1. Explain how the gays & gayelles are not MISERABLE NOW directly because of Obama's choice to keep 'don't ask don't tell'(but your welcome to die for us)-talk your way out of that TRUTH.

Aiding & abetting the Other Right is busily making REAL LEFTIES MISERABLE NOW-how do you compartmentalize reality to convince yourself certain horrendous events are continuing to take place under President Obama? Like warrantless spying, like maintaining the right to be judge jury & executioner-in the name of that old Soviet standby "National Security"?

[BzaDem]

103. Stupak was not added to healthcare, and Congress will end DADT in the defense appropriations bill.

Basically, everything you are saying is the exact opposite of reality.

It is ironic that you want Obama to violate the law by refusing to enforce DADT (as opposed to getting Congress to repeal it, as he is doing). Yet in the same post, you rail against Obama for using executive power.

[LostinVA]

107. Except he wouldn't be violating the law, which y'all already know

But, it's such a fine, upstanding, faux patriotic reason to keep Teh Gays in their place.

[KakistocracyHater]

111. not to you but the Other Right above you-sorry

*

[KakistocracyHater]

110. you're wack, he "promised" or hinted that he'd undo that law

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8839767
How do you explain this to yourself? Is this, too, the 'opposite or reality'?