The 9-12 Project

[Midnight Marauder]

You American voters are down right stupid.

You're not an American? Or a voter?

And YOU, the idiot who gets his "news" spoonfed from Media Matters and Huffington, the Huff-Puff, and just regurgitates it, have the nerve to call ANYONE stupid?

Where's your thread on how Media Matters apologized for lying to you, and where they published their retraction?

Hey, Huffington Post broke the story last year on exec bonus. You didn't pay attention until Fox lied about Dodd.

So you guys only care because Dodd was responsible?

You didn't care last year when Huffington broke the story. Why?

And yes you fucking house slaves. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the guy before you who replied to me in such a long cut up reply that I can't begin to respond.

But yes, there is a point when someone becomes too rich for democracy, which is exactly why we have the death tax.

Huff-Puff didn't break anything. The story on the bonuses was well covered by most of the major news channels last December. There simply wasn't any false outrage about it like there is now.

And stupid, Fox didn't lie about Dodd. That's been well documented and proven. Where's Media matters with their apology for exposing you as the partisan idiot dolt you are? Where's their retraction?

"House slaves?" This is coming from an idiot clod who is a proven liar, and who mooches off his boss's bandwidth dime because he's a fucking loser who still lives at home with daddy and cannot afford an internet connection at home? Please.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'll admit, the corporate media fucks with my head too sometimes. Then I snap out of it and realize that I'm being manipulated.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

You don't even believe the media is corporate, not liberal.

If it were liberal, it would fight the man. Instead, the man owns the media.

My goodness, you're really stupid, paranoid and uninformed.

 

[sealybobo]

You're not an American? Or a voter?

And YOU, the idiot who gets his "news" spoonfed from Media Matters and Huffington, the Huff-Puff, and just regurgitates it, have the nerve to call ANYONE stupid?

Where's your thread on how Media Matters apologized for lying to you, and where they published their retraction?

Hey, Huffington Post broke the story last year on exec bonus. You didn't pay attention until Fox lied about Dodd.

So you guys only care because Dodd was responsible?

You didn't care last year when Huffington broke the story. Why?

And yes you fucking house slaves. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the guy before you who replied to me in such a long cut up reply that I can't begin to respond.

But yes, there is a point when someone becomes too rich for democracy, which is exactly why we have the death tax.

Huff-Puff didn't break anything. The story on the bonuses was well covered by most of the major news channels last December. There simply wasn't any false outrage about it like there is now.

And stupid, Fox didn't lie about Dodd. That's been well documented and proven. Where's Media matters with their apology for exposing you as the partisan idiot dolt you are? Where's their retraction?

"House slaves?" This is coming from an idiot clod who is a proven liar, and who mooches off his boss's bandwidth dime because he's a fucking loser who still lives at home with daddy and cannot afford an internet connection at home? Please.

I never lied. You never lied either, because you believe the bullshit you say. And there is a lot you don't understand. So I don't call you a liar.

I can show you the Huffington Post story. Show me another source. This was 9-08

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

And Fox didn't lie? Then they got lucky, because it wasn't a fact that Dodd was the guy when they broke the story.

PS. I don't live with my parents you jackass. I already told you I live on a lake and I'm 4 years away from having it paid off.

PPS. I'm going to start another thread called, "WHY DO THE RICH HATE US". I hope you find it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Hey Sealy -- what's your suggestion for fixing America? Be specific and be detailed.

Start with an absolute limit per citizen on how much money they can donate to any politician or any political party.

Completely end any PAC money contributions.

ABsolutely NO corporate campiagn contributions.

Limits on total campaign spending and limits on campaign advertisments.

Absolutely NO campaign funding or political party funding from any foreign national or foreign corporation or business.

An increase in the number of House of Representatives such that each REP has 30,000 constiutents. (There'd give us a HoR of about 6,000 Reps, BTW)

An increase in the number of Senators to 6 per state.

There...that's a start to putting the DEMOCRATIC back into our democratic republic.

Public execution of any pols taking bribes, and any bribers giving them, too.

And then, while we're shredding the First Amendment, let's also limit the amount of favorable press newspapers, TV news, and other media outlets give candidates based on how much an ad using that much space would cost. If we don't give a damn about free speech, then I fail to see why we should give leftists an advantage by respecting the free press, either.

Or perhaps we could "fix" America without dismantling the freedoms it's supposed to stand for. Just a thought.

How is limiting political contributions stepping on the First Amendment?

Did you go to the 9-12 project link and see what they suggested about the media?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I got this in an email today:

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this
was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work
force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings -
Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed.

Love this!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Hey, Huffington Post broke the story last year on exec bonus. You didn't pay attention until Fox lied about Dodd.

So you guys only care because Dodd was responsible?

You didn't care last year when Huffington broke the story. Why?

And yes you fucking house slaves. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the guy before you who replied to me in such a long cut up reply that I can't begin to respond.

But yes, there is a point when someone becomes too rich for democracy, which is exactly why we have the death tax.

Huff-Puff didn't break anything. The story on the bonuses was well covered by most of the major news channels last December. There simply wasn't any false outrage about it like there is now.

And stupid, Fox didn't lie about Dodd. That's been well documented and proven. Where's Media matters with their apology for exposing you as the partisan idiot dolt you are? Where's their retraction?

"House slaves?" This is coming from an idiot clod who is a proven liar, and who mooches off his boss's bandwidth dime because he's a fucking loser who still lives at home with daddy and cannot afford an internet connection at home? Please.

I never lied. You never lied either, because you believe the bullshit you say. And there is a lot you don't understand. So I don't call you a liar.

I can show you the Huffington Post story. Show me another source. This was 9-08

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

And Fox didn't lie? Then they got lucky, because it wasn't a fact that Dodd was the guy when they broke the story.

PS. I don't live with my parents you jackass. I already told you I live on a lake and I'm 4 years away from having it paid off.

PPS. I'm going to start another thread called, "WHY DO THE RICH HATE US". I hope you find it.

SEALY!!! Why do you do this? You throw out a good idea then --- always fall back on your 'I hate Republicans; everything is the Republican's fault' soap box????? STOP IT! Pay attention -- it's GOVERNMENT that screws the people -- BOTH SIDES. You seem insistent that it is 'just a few Dems' while it is 'all Repubs'. WRONG. Get over it.

The sentence that I bolded above? Fox didn't lie. Fox did their homework and reported the facts before everyone else. Everyone else was behind in these facts. Get it? If CNN had reported this first, rather than Fox, would you still be saying the same thing? You really have to get over this hatred of the right. Did you even go to the 9-12 link? Do you even get what they are trying to do?

You never answered my question about your ideas - specifically ending the Fed - is there a grassroots project pertaining to this? Links?

To both you and MM -- DO NOT reduce this thread to a 'you're a fucking moron' name calling contest so it ends up in The Flame Zone. Please???

 

[Midnight Marauder]

To both you and MM -- DO NOT reduce this thread to a 'you're a fucking moron' name calling contest

That's no contest. Bozo IS the moron, hands down. As you just once again proved.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To both you and MM -- DO NOT reduce this thread to a 'you're a fucking moron' name calling contest

That's no contest. Bozo IS the moron, hands down. As you just once again proved.

 

[Terry]

*laughing* sorry but it was funny, Zoom.

 

[Zoom-boing]

*laughing* sorry but it was funny, Zoom.

I know!

 

[sealybobo]

Huff-Puff didn't break anything. The story on the bonuses was well covered by most of the major news channels last December. There simply wasn't any false outrage about it like there is now.

And stupid, Fox didn't lie about Dodd. That's been well documented and proven. Where's Media matters with their apology for exposing you as the partisan idiot dolt you are? Where's their retraction?

"House slaves?" This is coming from an idiot clod who is a proven liar, and who mooches off his boss's bandwidth dime because he's a fucking loser who still lives at home with daddy and cannot afford an internet connection at home? Please.

I never lied. You never lied either, because you believe the bullshit you say. And there is a lot you don't understand. So I don't call you a liar.

I can show you the Huffington Post story. Show me another source. This was 9-08

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

And Fox didn't lie? Then they got lucky, because it wasn't a fact that Dodd was the guy when they broke the story.

PS. I don't live with my parents you jackass. I already told you I live on a lake and I'm 4 years away from having it paid off.

PPS. I'm going to start another thread called, "WHY DO THE RICH HATE US". I hope you find it.

SEALY!!! Why do you do this? You throw out a good idea then --- always fall back on your 'I hate Republicans; everything is the Republican's fault' soap box????? STOP IT! Pay attention -- it's GOVERNMENT that screws the people -- BOTH SIDES. You seem insistent that it is 'just a few Dems' while it is 'all Repubs'. WRONG. Get over it.

The sentence that I bolded above? Fox didn't lie. Fox did their homework and reported the facts before everyone else. Everyone else was behind in these facts. Get it? If CNN had reported this first, rather than Fox, would you still be saying the same thing? You really have to get over this hatred of the right. Did you even go to the 9-12 link? Do you even get what they are trying to do?

You never answered my question about your ideas - specifically ending the Fed - is there a grassroots project pertaining to this? Links?

To both you and MM -- DO NOT reduce this thread to a 'you're a fucking moron' name calling contest so it ends up in The Flame Zone. Please???

H.R. 2755 to Abolish the Federal Reserve

I'll agree both sides are guilty of catering to the rich. Look when the Dems gave the telecoms retroactive immunity last year. And look at Dodd trying to sneak out the bonus clause.

But to that I have to insist that the Dems are certainly the lesser of two evils.

For the last 8 years Dems have worried about jobs going overseas. Republicans didn't care at all. Still don't. They love the cheap labor. Remember back in the day when we cared about American wages?

But yes, Clinton signed NAFTA. So I guess that's just as bad as how the GOP the last 8 years took out as many protections as they could for the American workers.

Or how the GOP created new tax laws that gave corporations a tax break if they left the USA. And this was not televised. I had to find out on NPR.

So I agree, Dems can be and sometimes have shown to be just as bad as Republicans.

But here's the problem I have with Republicans. They don't even understand that at the core of our problems, are these mega rich Robber Baron's who literally own our country and politicians. They are setting these policies. They have purchased the media to help sell us on invading Iraq for $, only they lied to us in the beginning.

Some Republicans I know admit that the super rich own this country and say, "there's nothing you can do about it". I disagree, but at least they admit it.

Its the ones that have the audacity to say that it is me who hates the rich, when over the last 8 years the rich have taken from us.

Now has anyone besides me asked if the rich hate us?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Start with an absolute limit per citizen on how much money they can donate to any politician or any political party.

Completely end any PAC money contributions.

ABsolutely NO corporate campiagn contributions.

Limits on total campaign spending and limits on campaign advertisments.

Absolutely NO campaign funding or political party funding from any foreign national or foreign corporation or business.

An increase in the number of House of Representatives such that each REP has 30,000 constiutents. (There'd give us a HoR of about 6,000 Reps, BTW)

An increase in the number of Senators to 6 per state.

There...that's a start to putting the DEMOCRATIC back into our democratic republic.

Public execution of any pols taking bribes, and any bribers giving them, too.

And then, while we're shredding the First Amendment, let's also limit the amount of favorable press newspapers, TV news, and other media outlets give candidates based on how much an ad using that much space would cost. If we don't give a damn about free speech, then I fail to see why we should give leftists an advantage by respecting the free press, either.

Or perhaps we could "fix" America without dismantling the freedoms it's supposed to stand for. Just a thought.

How is limiting political contributions stepping on the First Amendment?

Did you go to the 9-12 project link and see what they suggested about the media?

How is limiting the ability of everyday Americans to support the political candidates of their choice a limit on their freedom of political speech? The same way that banning flag-burning is. Freedom of expression - particularly political expression - is the heart and soul of America and the Constitution, and limiting the ability of people to "speak" for the candidates they believe in in the only way that most people can - with their pocketbooks - is effectively the censorship of our First Amendment rights.

 

[Zoom-boing]

And then, while we're shredding the First Amendment, let's also limit the amount of favorable press newspapers, TV news, and other media outlets give candidates based on how much an ad using that much space would cost. If we don't give a damn about free speech, then I fail to see why we should give leftists an advantage by respecting the free press, either.

Or perhaps we could "fix" America without dismantling the freedoms it's supposed to stand for. Just a thought.

How is limiting political contributions stepping on the First Amendment?

Did you go to the 9-12 project link and see what they suggested about the media?

How is limiting the ability of everyday Americans to support the political candidates of their choice a limit on their freedom of political speech? The same way that banning flag-burning is. Freedom of expression - particularly political expression - is the heart and soul of America and the Constitution, and limiting the ability of people to "speak" for the candidates they believe in in the only way that most people can - with their pocketbooks - is effectively the censorship of our First Amendment rights.

Maybe if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, we'd be able to decide who is the best candidate rather than who runs the best campaign. People can still support the candidate of their choice; just put a cap on the amount. Let the pols work within a specific budget. Oh wait, nix that . . . they don't know how. I don't equate limiting the amount one contributes to a candidate with limiting one's freedom of speech. By contributing you are exercising your freedom of speech.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How is limiting political contributions stepping on the First Amendment?

Did you go to the 9-12 project link and see what they suggested about the media?

How is limiting the ability of everyday Americans to support the political candidates of their choice a limit on their freedom of political speech? The same way that banning flag-burning is. Freedom of expression - particularly political expression - is the heart and soul of America and the Constitution, and limiting the ability of people to "speak" for the candidates they believe in in the only way that most people can - with their pocketbooks - is effectively the censorship of our First Amendment rights.

Maybe if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, we'd be able to decide who is the best candidate rather than who runs the best campaign. People can still support the candidate of their choice; just put a cap on the amount. Let the pols work within a specific budget. Oh wait, nix that . . . they don't know how. I don't equate limiting the amount one contributes to a candidate with limiting one's freedom of speech. By contributing you are exercising your freedom of speech.

No, if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, then the Democrats would be plastered everywhere, and the Republicans would never be seen, because the media provides absolutely unfettered - and completely biased and fawning - campaign advertising for the Dems. Can you say, "Barack Obama"?

You explain to me why the Democrats should have unlimited campaign funding and advertising via the media while the Republicans - and other candidates, for that matter - are restricted. This is why, in my original post to Ed, I asked if he'd be willing to shred the "free press" part of the First Amendment to match the shredding of the "free speech" part. Why should one group get unlimited freedom if everyone doesn't? Or more to the point, why should ANYONE have their freedoms in this area limited?

If you agree that contributing is exercising your freedom of speech, then it follows that limiting the amount you can contribute is limiting the amount you can speak, aka limiting your freedom of speech. How would you like it if I said, "You can post your opinions freely on this board . . . but only five posts a day!"

 

[Zoom-boing]

How is limiting the ability of everyday Americans to support the political candidates of their choice a limit on their freedom of political speech? The same way that banning flag-burning is. Freedom of expression - particularly political expression - is the heart and soul of America and the Constitution, and limiting the ability of people to "speak" for the candidates they believe in in the only way that most people can - with their pocketbooks - is effectively the censorship of our First Amendment rights.

Maybe if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, we'd be able to decide who is the best candidate rather than who runs the best campaign. People can still support the candidate of their choice; just put a cap on the amount. Let the pols work within a specific budget. Oh wait, nix that . . . they don't know how. I don't equate limiting the amount one contributes to a candidate with limiting one's freedom of speech. By contributing you are exercising your freedom of speech.

No, if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, then the Democrats would be plastered everywhere, and the Republicans would never be seen, because the media provides absolutely unfettered - and completely biased and fawning - campaign advertising for the Dems. Can you say, "Barack Obama"?

You explain to me why the Democrats should have unlimited campaign funding and advertising via the media while the Republicans - and other candidates, for that matter - are restricted. This is why, in my original post to Ed, I asked if he'd be willing to shred the "free press" part of the First Amendment to match the shredding of the "free speech" part. Why should one group get unlimited freedom if everyone doesn't? Or more to the point, why should ANYONE have their freedoms in this area limited?

If you agree that contributing is exercising your freedom of speech, then it follows that limiting the amount you can contribute is limiting the amount you can speak, aka limiting your freedom of speech. How would you like it if I said, "You can post your opinions freely on this board . . . but only five posts a day!"

Never said anything at all about dems or repubs having unlimited campaign funding/media . . . was actually implying the opposite.

I think if each candidate worked within the same amount of money (budget) . . . then maybe the best candidate would win . . . . rather than the candidate who runs the biggest campaign. Limiting the amount one contributes isn't limiting their speech; it's leveling the playing field.

As for the media . . . . perhaps public pressure would be a way to change the bias they possess. I don't know. Any ideas?

 

[Jon]

Yes, you limit someone's success if he us ruining his corporation to become rich.

Oh, my bad. I was under the impression people start companies to make money.

I don't hate the rich, they piss on you my broke ass brother.

Me? Broke? Hardly. Not rich, but certainly not broke. And, the rich don't piss on us anymore than politicians, including your precious Democrats.

You don't even know what rich is.

Was there a point to this statement? Not only does it not make sense, but it has no purpose.

Go ahead corporations and raise the cost of your goods. If you do, we won't buy your shit.

You want to tax ALL corporations, which means they will ALL raise the cost of their goods. Who else are you going to buy from, you ignorant shit?

But don't look to save money by cutting wages, unless it is the executives wages.

People are paid by what their efforts are deemed worthy.

You seem to have forgotten that this country is all about people, not corporations. Corporations do their business if first they serve the public interest.

Wrong. It is not written that corporations have to serve the public interest. That's only in communist countries, comrade.

The majority of Americans supported the war in 2003, maybe 2004, but then we found out we were lied to

After that, who supported the war? You and the rich people that benefitted from it. Oil and Defense.

I never supported the war, not even when we were being lied to. I am now and have always been against war, of any means.

Mostly Republican voters. So you should pay for it.

So, if I don't support social security, food stamps, public education, Medicare, and other social programs, I shouldn't have to pay for them? I like where this is going.

And since the rich mostly belong to the GOP, they should pay for it.

Did we establish that Obama won ALL demographics, including the rich? I thought so.

PS. If you don't manufacture 70% of your product inside America, you can't sell it here.

What would be so wrong about that?

It's communism. That's what's wrong with it. Pure and simple.

And if you manufacture in America, that means you pay American wages.

Not necessarily. Lots of illegals are working in American manufacturing plants.

Sorry if the cost of goods goes up because of it. So what? Pay a little more.

I don't have a problem with paying more for my goods. But when the cost goes up, I don't want to hear your bitching about it.

Why aren't sales great if we are getting all this cheap shit from overseas? Why aren't the rich spending the money they got from Bush?

Sales were great for many companies last year. So, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

You are a fucking right wing bitch. I swear.

Hardly. That's just your attempt to brush off my point-of-view. You don't know how to handle someone who's NOT a right-wing nut, so you have to group anyone who's not on their knees sucking Obama's cock as a right-winger. Otherwise, you would actually have to make sense when you spew your ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, you limit someone's success if he us ruining his corporation to become rich.

Oh, my bad. I was under the impression people start companies to make money.

I don't hate the rich, they piss on you my broke ass brother.

Me? Broke? Hardly. Not rich, but certainly not broke. And, the rich don't piss on us anymore than politicians, including your precious Democrats.



Was there a point to this statement? Not only does it not make sense, but it has no purpose.



You want to tax ALL corporations, which means they will ALL raise the cost of their goods. Who else are you going to buy from, you ignorant shit?



People are paid by what their efforts are deemed worthy.



Wrong. It is not written that corporations have to serve the public interest. That's only in communist countries, comrade.



I never supported the war, not even when we were being lied to. I am now and have always been against war, of any means.



So, if I don't support social security, food stamps, public education, Medicare, and other social programs, I shouldn't have to pay for them? I like where this is going.



Did we establish that Obama won ALL demographics, including the rich? I thought so.



It's communism. That's what's wrong with it. Pure and simple.



Not necessarily. Lots of illegals are working in American manufacturing plants.



I don't have a problem with paying more for my goods. But when the cost goes up, I don't want to hear your bitching about it.

Why aren't sales great if we are getting all this cheap shit from overseas? Why aren't the rich spending the money they got from Bush?

Sales were great for many companies last year. So, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

You are a fucking right wing bitch. I swear.

Hardly. That's just your attempt to brush off my point-of-view. You don't know how to handle someone who's NOT a right-wing nut, so you have to group anyone who's not on their knees sucking Obama's cock as a right-winger. Otherwise, you would actually have to make sense when you spew your ignorance.

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

 

[Jon]

But here's the problem I have with Republicans. They don't even understand that at the core of our problems, are these mega rich Robber Baron's who literally own our country and politicians.

Last I checked, it was Democrats making all the decisions now. So if the rich own our politicians and make all the decisions, it means the Democrats are now the guilty party. And, to top it off, they are doing NOTHING to change it. This administration and this Congress are no different from the last 8 years. You want real change, CHANGE the politicians. Stop re-electing fucks like Pelosi and Reid. The only logical argument you've made here is that politician terms should be limited. I agree. Nothing is going to change if we let the same people continue to run things. Obama wasn't change. All we changed was our national spokesperson. The people pulling the strings are the same. And it's not Republicans. It's as you said: the rich bankers. You want to stop them? Elect people who can't be bought.

 

[Jon]

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Providing a good that the public wants/needs IS serving the public interest.

Thomas Jefferson also never realized the possibility of a global economy.

 

[sealybobo]

But here's the problem I have with Republicans. They don't even understand that at the core of our problems, are these mega rich Robber Baron's who literally own our country and politicians.

Last I checked, it was Democrats making all the decisions now. So if the rich own our politicians and make all the decisions, it means the Democrats are now the guilty party. And, to top it off, they are doing NOTHING to change it. This administration and this Congress are no different from the last 8 years. You want real change, CHANGE the politicians. Stop re-electing fucks like Pelosi and Reid. The only logical argument you've made here is that politician terms should be limited. I agree. Nothing is going to change if we let the same people continue to run things. Obama wasn't change. All we changed was our national spokesperson. The people pulling the strings are the same. And it's not Republicans. It's as you said: the rich bankers. You want to stop them? Elect people who can't be bought.

Why do you think we got rid of all the GOP encumbents? It was clear, even in a lot of very red states, that these guys had to go.

And look at how loyal you idiots are. As corrupt as Ted Stevens was, he still almost won in the very very red state of Alaska.

It almost seems as if you right wingers know that the rich are at the core of the problem, but you don't really think it is a problem. This is the mystery I am trying to uncover. You seem to admit that the rich are at the core of the problem, but ONLY when you are suggesting that Dems are just as bad as Republicans.

Good enough for me. At least now you have admitted that the rich are unfairly influencing them and that in no way benefits the masses. It only benefits them, the rich.

But at last you and I are getting close to agreeing with each other on who the real problem is. You just can't admit it yet.

So, you admit that the rich own our politicians? I'm not going to say they don't own the Democrats too. How can I after what Dodd did?

And I don't see Obama saying what Ron Paul & Dennis Kuchenich are saying, so I do worry that they have gotten to him too.

They certainly got to Clinton. But see how you bash him? Why? He was a very centrist president.

So the next thing I want you to admit is that you are just as much of a partisan hack as I am.

I think you just believe the GOP are the lesser of two evils, just like I think the Dems are the lesser of two evils.

I never said I love the Dems. I just know for certain that I do not approve of the GOP.

And you defend the GOP and everything they did for the rich.

But the second the Dems get in charge and you see them doing the same things, you use it to bash the Dems? What a partisan hack you are. Right?