Nothing Short of War

[kentuck]

I know some folks are uncomfortable talking about elections in terms of "war". But the Republican Party despises Barack Obama. He is their sworn enemy. They have declared war on him and his Party. His defeat is their only option.

Now, Barack Obama may not be a friend of mine, but I know the Republicans are my enemy. Nothing they stand for is good for me, my family, or my friends. I don't need a talking head on TV to convince me otherwise. Mitt Romney is the 1%. All of us in the 99% will suffer if he or any Republican is elected President.

If you need further proof, look no further than their reactions to the President's recess appointments. They don't want a civilian head looking out for the consumers of this country. They don't want an NLRB that looks out for the rights of working people in this country. In fact, they don't want an NLRB at all. And we know they want to make cuts everywhere except in the Defense Department.

I say it is time to gather forces as if it were an armed conflict. There are enemies at the gate. We can pretend it is only politics but it is more than that. They cannot be reasoned with. They must be defeated. We must unite or we will all pay the price. It doesn't matter if you like Barack Obama or not. The only alternative is something we cannot accept.

[bvar22]

1. The REAL War in this country...

...is between the Billionaire Predators, and every one else.

I wish it was as easy as Democrat vs Republican,
but it is not.

[kentuck]

2. Don't you think Mitt Romney is a spokesman for the "Billionaire Predators"?

He just happens to have an "R" by his name. His real Party is with his billionaire friends.

[TheKentuckian]

10. The TeaPubliKlans just represent the more short sighted and it could be argued

that Democrats are more inclusive of the upper class and might even work for the whole top 20% to some degree if you follow our tax break benefits.

[kentuck]

11. It could be argued..

but there is no doubt where Romney and the Republicans stand. Until we have someone that reflects our voices, it does not seem wise to me to surrender the ship to the Republicans at this time, no matter how much we may disagree with Obama and the Democrats. Just my opinion.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Hey, I fully accept going through the motions in sort of a desperate time buying effort

What I'm not too tolerate of pretending it is much more than that or a sure bet to hold up considering they keep enabling the the Republican agenda anyway and are right there with them in much of the shit that makes me fucking hate the Reich in the first place. We actually have folks campaigning on imaginary worse evils, yeah we got hosed but imagine the shit those fuckers would do!

This path is not sustainable and it sometimes seems that some are trying to punt the inevitable pain down the line far enought that they won't live to see it no matter how much interest those in the future have to pay.

It takes very little imagination to project this cycle ending in complete and utter failure. In a few decades the outcomes will even out to distinctions without difference. It might be different if we weren't generally pushing their agenda and too often enacting the shit they can't hoodwink folks into swallowing from them.

A holding action to bridge to something else, I can buy. Hell, I can even sell that but as an end or a step in the right direction, even? No, it isn't very likely especially as the entire foundations of our rights as individuals is being decimated and we are being sucked dry of resourses and opportunity.

The more links we allow to be built into our chains the harder it will be to break free until the weight of the lengths will soon lead to forgetting all thoughts of freedom.

[kentuck]

30. Well said.

I can't disagree with your comments. We are buying time.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are at a critical juncture. If the Republicans are elected, they will consolidate their gains and the chains will be too heavy to carry. It does not mean we agree with Barack Obama or his agenda. It means we support an agenda for the people. It is a Hobson's choice. We support Barack Obama out of necessity.

It is a difficult challenge to ask someone to vote for a candidate with whom they disagree. However, if you have to get to a destination and there is only one horse to ride, you have to choose that horse.

[bvar22]

31. The Leadership of BOTH dominant political parties pander to the 1%,

and could give a Flying Fuck about Americans who have to Work for a Living.

The BIG DIFFERENCE in the spotlight between the Democrats & The Republicans on Economic Policy this election is that the
Democratic Party Leadership believes that the RICH should pay 3.5% more in the TOP bracket (36% to 39%).
THAT is a PHONY war (Kabuki Theater) designed and marketed to enhance the illusion of a difference.
That crumb of an increase in the Income Tax won't make ANY discernible difference.

Someone who really wanted to take on the Billionaires would be using the Bully Pulpit daily, preaching with Hair on Fire
for a return to the Economic & Trade Policies of the 50s and 60s where the top bracket paid between 70% - 90%,
and the USA grew the biggest and most prosperous Middle/Working Class the WORLD had ever seen!

THAT would be a wildly popular campaign marketed as "We want OUR America Back!",
but someone would have to be on our side in the WAR to actually do this.

As long as the National Debate is squeezed into the very narrow gap between the Centrist Democratic Leadership & The Republicans
(36% vs 39%),
the BILLIONAIRES WIN BIG.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[rhett o rick]

8. I totally agree. nm

[kentuck]

9. But don't you think that...?

putting Romney or any Republican into office at this time will only aggravate the condition of the 99%, much moreso than if a Democrat is elected? I cannot see where the 99ers are going without being involved in the electoral process, in some way or other. We cannot pretend that it does not make a difference which side wins. It may not be enough for you or I, but for some, it will be one of terrible consequence, just from program cuts alone.

[NSojac]

12. Personally I don't think it makes

one lick of difference, Obama vs Romney, pertaining to this issue.

Socially, yes, Obama is better.

[kentuck]

13. I used to believe that.

I have come to believe differently by watching this present gaggle of Republicans.

[rhett o rick]

21. No one here will disagree that the republicons are far worse than the Democrats.

The question is whether the Democrats can save us. IMO, not at the rate we are going. IMHO Occupy exists because a lot of people dont think the Democrats can do it.

When the Titanic sunk sitting in the back may have been better than the front, but in the end it really didnt matter.

[kentuck]

23. I would agree...

This will only buy us time until we can save ourselves, in my opinion. The present Democratic Party is not equipped to address the problems that face our people and our country. They have become wedded to the status quo to the point where they cannot change unless we change them.

[Enrique]

3. as part of the 99%, do I think the Democrats are MUCH better than the republicans?

yes, by far.

Do I think the Democrats are on my side in a "war" against the 1%? No.

[RC]

4. At the gate?

There are many inside the gate disguises as caring people. They need to be found, recognized and dealt with also.

[silverweb]

5. Agreed.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]This is why I said in a different thread that we need to encourage and thank the President for the new, bold steps he's taken.

We all need to show our appreciation by emailing him directly to thank him for what he's done, encourage him to continue acting boldly and aggressively against Republican obstructionism and their single-minded hatred.

We've got to let him know we've "got his back" (with a donation to his campaign where possible) if he continues on this path. He needs to hear our thanks and encouragement at least as much as he's been hearing our complaints for the past 3+ years.

[kentuck]

6. I think it is more important that...

...we agree to unite against a common foe.

[silverweb]

7. I believe that's what we'd be doing.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]We'd be uniting and gathering our numbers in support of a President who MUST beat the reTHUGs decisively this year -- with big enough margins to eliminate any possible challenge or question. As you say, any alternative result is unacceptable.

If we want the President to lead aggressively, he needs to know that we're behind him and he needs to know where we stand on the issues that are important to us. Grudging political support just isn't enough.

[TheKentuckian]

29. I am not tolerate of much of his leading aggressively.

He is to aggressive in attacking public education.

Too aggressive in surrendering our rights.

Too aggressive in assuming the powers of a despot, the ability to order death at his discretion without even a hint of due process.

Too agressive in selling out the people to an unreformed, unrepentent, predatory insurance cartel.

Too aggressive in assimilating and implementing recycled Republican policy that time has not warmed my heart to.

To aggressive in deporting unauthorized migrants.

Too aggressive in pushing austerity gang after austerity gang.

Too aggressive in pushing the counter-productive and societally cancerous drug war.

Too aggressive in cozing up with twisted flim-flam artist fundies of many stripes.

Too aggresive with bombing people with the drones.

Too aggressive with traditional military in AfPakistan.

Too aggressive with the Private Army of The Executive shit carried right the fuck over from Bush with all of these fucking mercs.

Too aggressive in negotiating concessions with TeaPubliKlans for seriously sometimes NOTHING (see the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act, over a hundred amendments ZERO votes) and peanuts from "stakeholders".

Too agressive with letting BP destroy our habitat, smoothed over with a fund that they'll never pay out that is a fraction of the damage they have done.

Too aggressive in pursuing bipartisanship with a bunch of greedy, evil, delusional, oppositional, simple minded, crooked, delusional, bigoted, and willfully incompetent and unrepentent fuckwits who are avowed to destroy the government, get all money and resource control into the hands of the wealthy, are actually pro-war chickenhawks, anti-science, pro-theocracy, radical regressives sworn to make him fail.

I don't see how we can look at the state of affairs and chalk our issues to holding public officials too accountable, not eagerly eating enough shit, expecting too much, that we complain too much about our privacy being violated, that we aren't quite blowing up enough folks, that our stupid wars are too few or too short or too cheap, or that the drug war hasn't failed enough, or that our infrastructure is too well maintained and too modern, or too few lobbyist involved in our legislation, or that the wealthy have too little and the poor too much and the worker has it too easy with the deck stacked to heavily in their favor, or that criminals in high places with the right friends are prosecuted to vigorously.

Grudging support is the stuff of miracles and deep desperation.

[silverweb]

33. Okey dokey then.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]You have a fun day.

[Greybnk48]

32. I agree with your assessment Kentuck

and with the attitude people need to have. The sooner people realize what we're up against the better.

[NSojac]

14. Newt has gone on record

saying he'd vote for Obama before Paul. There is a war on but it's not quite as you make it out to be.

[kentuck]

15. I heard him say just the exact opposite yesterday?

Is Newt flip-flopping like Romney??

[NSojac]

17. Quite possibly

Point is, these guys (and you can bet newt represents the establishment), knows who butters their bread. Politically, advocating the election of your opponent over a member of your own party pretty bad, the fact that it even came out in the first place is very telling.

[kentuck]

18. I haven't heard any Repub candidate say that??

Do you remember where you heard it or do you have a link? Not even Ron Paul has said he would vote for Obama over the Repub nominee?

[NSojac]

19. CNN in an interview with Blitzer

"When asked if he would be able to vote for Paul if the congressman secured the Republican nomination, Gingrich said unequivocally “No.”"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gingrich-voting-for-either-ron-paul-or-obama-would-be-a-very-bad-choice-for-america/

Okay it seems newt's statement was less strong than I had remembered. Still...

[kentuck]

20. But did he say he would vote for Obama??

I doubt it.

[Mira]

16. Yes n/t

[Odin2005]

22. This is the moral equivalent of war.

The Republican Party needs to be wiped out, crushed, smashed.

[LibertyorDeath]

24. "unite or we will all pay the price"

" There are enemies at the gate. We can pretend it is only politics but it is more than that. They cannot be reasoned with. They must be defeated. We must unite or we will all pay the price. It doesn't matter if you like Barack Obama or not. The only alternative is something we cannot accept. "

Very well said...

Rec!

[unkachuck]

25. "We must unite or we will all pay the price."

....okay, what's the pay-off?....what do I get if we win?

[quaker bill]

26. an absence of republicans

is generally reward enough.

[unkachuck]

27. "an absence of republicans is generally reward enough"

....that was last time....you can't fool me with that this time....