Both parties are NOT the same.
Take, for example, this Joni Ernst character, now favored to win the senate seat in Iowa. Good lord, what a freak! She thinks that states can and should nullify federal laws. She's every bit as bad as Sharron Angle, yet she looks poised to pull this thing off.
Joni is a huge proponent of the inane "Agenda 21" conspiracy theory, a meme so silly that even I, the expert on All Things Fringe, have not (until now) seen fit to acknowledge its existence. If you don't know much about Agenda 21, you may want to visit this page. Also here...
Agenda 21 was a lovely document produced to help move the world toward more sustainable living, promoting smart growth and care for our surroundings. It has, like most U.N. documents, no teeth. And it respects national boundaries and sovereignty. I saw it as a rather pie-in-the-sky effort but forward thinking nonetheless.If both parties are the same, why is it that no Dem ever embraces this kind of paranoid propaganda?
I cannot fathom why a group of people would twist this document into an ugly conspiracy that supposedly hopes to cage people in cities to let wildlife roam free, and then rule those people in a global government. This is one of the most laughable conspiracies around today...
And if both parties are the same, why don't the Koch brothers donate to both parties?
Joni has an interesting funding mechanism behind her. Her puppeteer appears to be her "spokesperson" Gretchen Hamel, director of something called Public Notice. She seems to tie in with one Scott Howell, considered by some to be the inheritor of the Karl Rove/Lee Atwater legacy. I'm sure we'll be hearing much more about Scott.
The best investigation I've seen of this nexus is here...
Public Notice has a related non-profit entity by the name of Public Notice Research and Education Fund, which is controlled directly by the SGC4 trust. Gretchen Hamel is the sole director of that entity, too. That entity established a website called WashingtonCouldLearnALot.com, which was built to bolster the right-wing idea that all lawmakers had to do is eliminate Medicare and Social Security and all would be right again. Bluebirds would sing and everything would be wonderful. The site is aimed at hipster internet users, or something.The piece goes on to describe the secrets of the Cato Institute. Good stuff.
At this point, I really don't want to hear your ultra-predictable guff about how Both Parties Are the Same. You're about to say something about Syria, aren't you, O Predictable Ones? Well, you know damned well that I care a great deal about Syria, and about Ukraine, and about neo-neoconservatism in general.
But:
1. The "liberal interventionist" wing of the Democratic Party is not the whole of the party. It's a wing. Don't pretend otherwise.
2. Even the liberal interventionist Dems (detestable as they are) don't want to get rid of Medicare, Social Security and Food Stamps.
Last word: I've long suspected that those knee-jerkers who reflexively offer up the SIBPATS speech are Republican ratfuckers. Do you remember the reaction when Nancy Pelosi said she would take the impeachment of Dubya off the proverbial table? Every liberal blog was robo-inundated with comments from people who suddenly hated Pelosi more than they hated Bush. The continually-heard message went along these lines: "Pelosi's refusal to go after Bush proves that all Dems are corrupt. So let's vote the straight Republican ticket. That'll show her!"
These tricks are pretty easy to see through, now that we know more about online "personas" and sock-puppetry and other means of mechanized trolling.
7 comments:
As Charles Peguy put it, whoever says "neither left nor right" means "right". ("Qui dit 'ni droite ni gauche' dit de droite"). Nicely put, Charles.
(Gotta confess, I used to say it - from an ultraleftist standpoint - but I was never a right-wing ratfucker. Just confused without knowing it.)
Latest users of the shitty slogan include the French National Front.
I am now in a position to vote against the detestable Joni Ernst, and I will. I'm absolutely against the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic party, but I'm not a fool. If I could vote for Rick Stewart I would, but he isn't even close in the polling.
I'm now in a position to vote against the utterly detestable Joni Erst, and I shall. I'd like nothing better than to vote for Rick Stewart, but he doesn't stand a chance. I can only hope that Bruce Braley isn't a typical neo-liberal Democrat.
Added: Holy shit, a readable captcha.
OK, Joseph, both parties are not the same when you compare their rhetoric.
In California some of us have recognized that Democratic state legislators were perfectly willing to advocate single-payer healthcare as long as Gov. Schwarzenegger could be relied upon to veto it, but when a Democrat is Governor they're not so enthusiastic.
I'm surprised that someone who puts forth the case that Obama's mom was CIA and he is CIA seemingly can not recognize that Obama is Karl Rove's wet dream--much preferable to McCain and Romney.
I'm sure that some of the "both parties are the same" folks are Republicans in disguise. For myself, my dislike of both parties does not translate into voting Republican to "show" the Dems. Or vice versa, for that matter. I would prefer to vote for people that I actually support and agree with to a large extent. Sadly, those people are rarely Democrats.....however, they are NEVER Republicans. So, no, I don't subscribe to the "both parties are the same" rhetoric, but I'm never going to vote for people I don't agree with just because they have a "D" after their name. On the other hand, if a Republican was so repulsive that I had actual fear about them winning (like the person you mention), I would probably be willing to hold my nose and vote for the Dem (unless the Dem was actually a good choice, then I would happily vote for them, of course). I'm not so foolish as to let a complete disaster win, just because I'm not happy with the Dems. Both parties are the same in one way......big money controls their every move. There are certainly exceptions, of course, mostly on the Dem side.
Perhaps some day, people like Gus will realize that when it comes to who is to control the levers of power, it is not about the personal preferences of the voter, it is a question of what is good for the community.
Those who vote for a totally marginal third- or fourth-party candidate because they are not willing to vote for an imperfect Democrat might as well have stayed home.
stickler, that is complete and utter bullshit and you know it. If we lived in an actual democratic republic, then a vote for any candidate would be a fair choice. Suggesting that a persons vote, based on conscience and the information at hand, is a "waste" is the hight of self centered arrogance. The reason 3rd party candidates have no chance is because the game is stacked against them, but the "big two" parties that we are all supposed to take sides with, like a shirts vs. skins game by rowdy teenagers in the local sand lot. It does the "community" no good at all to vote Democratic instead of 3rd party, just to keep a Republican from winning. There is plenty of evidence (and even proof) that the voting system is completely rigged, and it's pretty obvious that people who get far enough to actually have a chance at a national (or even state level, in many cases) office have been thoroughly compromised and are allowed to run only that the behest of our corporate masters. So, while I think voting is a completely useless exercise that does nothing but validate the current completely corrupt government system we now have, I do it anyway, just in case I'm wrong, and vote with my conscience.......which, as you would know if you knew anything at all about me (which, of course, you do not), INCLUDES consideration of the community I am a part of. So, no, I don't vote for purely selfish reasons, as there would be no sense in that, even if the system were fair and balanced. Which it most certainly is not.
Post a Comment