April 7, 2016

Alan Greenspan a disciple of Ayn Rand was loved by the Ruling Class from Reagan thru

Bush. That includes Clinton. One thing that wealthy Democrats have in common with wealthy Republicons is their greed and Alan Greenspan was their man. Of course he and Ayn Rand were wrong. Greed does not raise all boats.


In 1963 our buddy Alan said:

In 2008 he admitted he had been wrong. Greed wasn't self-regulating.


Translated, that means he did not think the greed of the CEO's would lead to the killing of the Golden Goose.

Poor Alan lived in an Ayn Rand fantasy world and the Wealthy 1% Ruling Class including Reagan, Clinton and Bush took advantage to enriched the Wealthy at the expense of the Middle and Working Classes and the Poor.

If you want more of the same schit, vote for another Clinton.

April 6, 2016

Why are some Democrats so afraid of change and hold onto their status quo like a baby blanket?

They are good people but they just are afraid of changing the status quo. When you point out all their fellow citizens that are suffering, they dont want to hear it. They read and watch the corporate news even when you tell them the truth lies elsewhere. They are afraid the truth will compel them to do something. They hold on to the status quo like a favorite baby blanket. They have been indoctrinated in the meme that change can bring worse times. Struggle and you will get The Donald.

But these people are really conservatives although some pretend to be progressive. They know that in this fight between The People and our corporate Oligarchy, their inaction helps the Oligarchy and yet they will eventually suffer along with The People. These conservatives stand by and watch protestors get punched, sprayed and even shot and do nothing. Hiding in their denial bubbles.

Sen Sanders represents a movement that demands change from the looting and greed of the Wealth 1%, while Clinton represents maintaining the status quo that has caused such harm to the lower 99%.

This primary is a fight for freedoms, liberties, and basic health care free from greedy insurance companies.

April 5, 2016

We need a Revolution but not violence.

Violence is an authoritarian tool used to terrorize We The People into submission. Any violence by us is welcomed by the state to justify much higher levels of violence against us. A goal of protests is to awaken the public to the inequities and corruption of the current political and economic systems. Being violent obscures this message. Currently the state is careful not to “unjustly” imprison protestors and thereby possibly produce sympathy for the protestors. If protestors are violent then the state would be justified, at least in the minds of the public, to imprison them longer, and treat them with more brutality.

There is an excellent article about non-violence in the book, “Occupy: Scenes from Occupied America”, by Rebecca Solnit. The article is called, “Throwing Out the Master’s Tools and Building a Better House”.

From the article:
"The powerful and effective movements of the past sixty years have used the strategy of people power. It works. I changes the world. It's changing the world now. Join us. Or don't join us. But please dont try to have it both ways."

Senator Sanders is calling for a revolution but not violence. It's time to fight back against the oppression of the Ruling Class that has taken our homes, our jobs, our retirements and in some cases members of our family sent to war to die for larger profits for the Ruling Class.

April 2, 2016

Tired of them pretending that Quid Pro Quo isn't a significant factor in politics.

There are over 11,000 lobbyists in Wash the DC and last year they spent (read graft) over $3 billion dollars. How many of them are on the side of the People? How many on the side of the Clinton Class?

I am tired of the denials regarding conspiracies. Politics is full of conspiracies. Karl Rove's job is to conspire and the big Think Tanks are really Conspiracy Tanks. How much of this conspiring is for the good of the 99% ? How much is for the good of the Clinton Class.

I am tired of the hypocrisy of so-called Democrats that stood side by side with the Left fighting the Corp-Media and their bias for the Ruling Class, only to embrace those same institutions now that their candidate is running.

I am tired of the hypocrisy of so-called Democrats that stood side by side with the Left fighting Big Money corruption via Citizens United only now to embrace it when it benefits their candidate.

I am tired of those pretending that support of a Clinton Aristocracy won't harm those struggling in the lower classes. How high do the numbers in poverty have to climb before they see beyond their authoritarian adulation.

March 26, 2016

Is Clinton progressive? Let's look at her positions on issues. How about legalizing marijuana?

Asked if she supports the legalization of marijuana, a simple yes or no question, she resorts to rhetoric.

She says "we need an approach" That's rhetoric folks. Needing an approach is no commitment to anything.

She goes on to say that she thinks it would be ok to let allow the states to act as "laboratories of democracy". What the hell are "laboratories of democracy? So hey, do you support the legalization of marijuana or not?

She hints that she would favor letting the states legalize the use of marijuana without any federal government interference unless (oh oh here's the catch) unless certain federal guidelines are violated. Then the federal government can step in and overrule the states and throw people in her Prisons For Profits. Hello, that's exactly the way it's handled today. So her answer to the question do you support the legalization of marijuana is to keep the status quo.

I can see were the conservative Clinton would be leery of the legalization of marijuana for recreational use because conservatives long have been against the peons having their freedoms. It's her stand on medical use of marijuana that upsets me the most. She thinks it needs more and more and more studies just like Big Pharma thinks, hmmmm. To deny people suffering, the use of a drug that has been "tested" for years and found to be more effective with less side effects than some of Big Pharma's drugs, seems to me to be not empathetic.

There are a lot of sources of her position on marijuana on the intertubes, hell even her CNN wrote this:

How is that for rhetoric?

So what is her position? "we need an approach".

March 26, 2016

She doesn't agree with him on anything. Did you watch the debates?

Here is a list of issues that the two are miles apart:

We want to Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
We are Opposed to job killing "Free Trade" agreements
We are opposed to fracking for oil company profits over people's water
We want to help college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
We support making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
We want to end the unregulated domestic spying and making the NSA/CIA Security State have oversight.
Also end drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
We are for reducing the defense budget
We are for taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
We support the end of the militarization of our local police forces.
We want to end Prisons for Profits
We support legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
We believe in the need for funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
We support single payer health insurance.
We want to see the regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
We want to break up the big bank and media monopolies.
We are against American Exceptionalism and an excuse for neocon imperialism.

March 25, 2016

Bullying For Goodness

I have learned a lot about bullying in the last few years and some thanks to DU. My below text is my attempt to put some of what I think I've learned down in writing. I would greatly appreciate comments as I may be way off. I am posting this here because I view this Group as the Progressive Group were we can post progressive ideas and have discussions w/o the disruptions.

Bullying For Goodness

Bullying can be defined as the abuse of an imbalance of power.

We run into bullies everywhere in our everyday lives. Our first experience was probably at school as children often vying for dominance. It seems natural and may be human nature. Maybe those tribes that had an authoritarian social structure survived and those that didn't, didn't.

Our schools don't handle bullying well as we've seen time and again where the victim is often punished in lieu of the bully. Why is this? I think that we've evolved to live in a bully run culture. It isn't just our schools but most of our institutions don't handle it well either. We've all experienced case of coaches, bosses, family, friends, that abuse others verbally, emotionally and in some cases physically.

Let's step back a little because I don't think we can have a discussion of bullying without including authoritarianism. I believe that bully-ism is part of authoritarianism.

Here's a definition of authoritarianism (from merriam-webster.com):
1. of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.
2. 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.

Does that sound familiar? Bob Altemeyer has written a great book, “The Authoritarians” (free on the internet). He provides a great insight into authoritarianism which is important to the discussion of bullies.
More about authoritarianism http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710250

As mentioned above we are introduced to bullying (authoritarian domination) from an early age. Some parents bully their children. Some teachers bully as do scout leaders, coaches, and other authorities that children deal with at an early age. Many of these people don't even realize that they are bullying. Some do it because it's easier for a leader to dominate.
Bullying is deep seated within our culture. The USofA has been a bully nation since the beginning. The Native Americans were bullied, Mexico was bullied when we took the southwest from them. The Monroe Doctrine is bullying personified. Many of our presidents were bullies, like Woodrow Wilson, for example. And Theodore Roosevelt even used the term “Bully, bully”. Ok, sorry for that. Some look to make heroes out of bullies like Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer because they rationalize that they are bullying on the side of goodness. Vigilantism is bully for goodness. And we've seen that right here in River City.

The Stand Your Ground laws normalized bullying for goodness. All one has to do is decide they represent goodness and they get a free hand.
The Zimmerman case is a great example. He was protecting the neighborhood from perceived badness. He got away with murder because he was perceived as on the side of goodness.
Bullying is common on message boards. People form groups that make themselves feel safer. If they think another poster is on the wrong side of goodness (maybe doesn't agree with their worldview) they will ridicule and hound (bully) until they get a response that they can point at as challenging goodness (sexism or racism). This gives them the justification they need to do whatever is necessary to get the poster banned. Bullying is ok if done for the sake of goodness.
“Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate.” (Wikipedia)
Some bullies are arrogant and domineering while others will use bullying as a tool to boost self esteem by siding with the dominate bully.
Subordinate bullies may not be brave enough to aggressively bully but will support the dominate bully by ridiculing the victim and egging the dominate bully on. In this we can clearly see mob mentality. The individual bully is emboldened by the pack.

Some observations about bullies.

I have seen this first hand. A strong dominate bully will acquiesce to a perceived stronger bully. And the weaker bullies will become dominate bullies if they find a weak enough victim.

In the bully mindset, if one is bullied they rationalize the need to seek a bigger bully for help with revenge. For example, if a child is bullied they may go to their older, bigger sibling to fight for them. This cycle can continue and escalate out of control on a large scale as we've seen in the middle east. Who is getting even with who?

When a dominate bully is confronted, they are quick to play the victim card. They are, after all, really cowards and only bully those that are weaker.

Unless physical danger is involved, stand up to bullies but never sink to their level. Don't justify fighting them on their level. Keep strong to your principles. “Never wrestle a bully in the mud. You will only get dirty and they love it.”

This is intended to evoke a discussion about what I see as a significant problem.

March 23, 2016

I guess we can call each other trolls now. Or at least the Clinton side.

March 23, 2016

With due respect, that's a typical bunch of rhetoric. It's real easy to say

that she supports the legalization of marijuana use. She goes way out of her way to not say that. She says "we need an approach" yada yada yada. We don't need an approach, we need straight talk. She would be ok to let allow the states to act as "laboratories of democracy", what does that even mean. She hints that she would favor the federal government leaving states alone as long as they didn't violate some arbitrary guidelines that could be changed and enforced any time wanted. For example, who gets to decide if organized crime is involved or not? Her half-assed stand on medical marijuana use lacks empathy. She wants to "advance research into it's health benefits" while people are suffering. Again, bullshit rhetoric. She does not commit herself at all.

March 9, 2016

Some will always side with the big power, big money.

Some of us have been fighting against the bullies for most of our lives, in school, in business and now the rich and super-rich, the Oligarchy.

I work at a foodbank and see daily the ravishes from the collateral damage from the rich and powerful looting the lower classes. In the last 30 years the rich and powerful have tripled their wealth while us peons have had to help each other, the poor, our vets, homeless, and seniors. I have family and friends that have lost homes, jobs and retirements thanks to those , living in denial, ignoring the real problem.

I think this race, if won by the wealthy 1% may break the backs of the lower classes and that's why so many of us are fighting so hard. It's literally a war a class war, and if the Oligarchy wins, people will die from lack of proper nutrition and lack of needed health care. More jobs will be lost and wages will go lower. Banks will take more homes and retirements. Most likely there will be another bank realignment where we, the lower 99%, bail them out again.

Clinton doesn't even pretend to want to fix the growing, GROWING wealth gap. Why would she, she has benefited greatly by the system to the tune of $50,000,000. She talks about how growth is needed to help the lower classes. That's code for more of the same crap we've been seeing for the last 30 years. We've had tremendous growth in the last 30 years, but the wealthy have not shared it with us peons. We we need jobs, homes, infrastructure, single payer, and the expansion of Social Security, but most of all we need to stop the looting by the wealthy and start making them pay their share.

Some Democrats that I've spoken to ask why would Democrats side with the big power, big money, over the People, the lower 99%. The same reason they side with the police beating protesters, side with the government when they spy on Americans, side against whistle blowers and investigative journalists, side with Republicons when they invade Iraq, etc. They are authoritarians, raised to revere and never question authority. They can ignore those among us that are suffering and bow to the power. They revere the Clinton Aristocracy and ignore the 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty