Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.

"And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

"While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly.

"Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

"Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.

"Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).

"In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.

"That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."

Now...blame "government."

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"

Citigroup never went bankrupt.

Why not?

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

 

[Andylusion]

Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.

"Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."

If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run. Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?

They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism. So in a sense, your claim is correct. If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?

Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.

"And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

"While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly.

"Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

"Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.

"Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).

"In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.

"That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."

Now...blame "government."

Nice bunch of lies. But that's all they are is lies. Spain's system crashed because of Socialism. The BBC did a documentary on Spain, and clearly outlined the whole thing.

BBC News - Valencia: A Spanish city without medicine

The government of Valencia - which runs the health system - owes a grand total of half a billion euros to the region's pharmacies.

Paula guides me into that back room that exists in all pharmacies, where the prescription drugs are kept. The problem is, now, there are not many drugs left.

"Look, this drawer is usually full," she says, pointing to where the suppositories are kept. Now there are only two packets."

She opens the fridge. "Look," she says, "we are down to our last packs of insulin. We just have no money to buy the stock."

Socialism at work. In a Capitalist system, the money available to buy new drugs, would come from current paying customers. Instead, empty shelves.

Now quite a lot of the patients are having to do something which for them is extraordinary: they are having to pay - a bit - for their medicines. There is a sign on the door explaining the new charges.

Isn't it interesting how when Socialism fails, and it always does, they end up right back in good old fashioned Capitalism?

There is the Formula One racetrack, which runs right through the city so the roads had to be redesigned. But the city has lost its Formula One race.

There is the America's Cup dock, with huge sheds for ocean-going yachts and a massive white control tower. But there is no more America's Cup racing in Valencia.

There is the Opera House, a cross between the one in Sydney and something you would imagine only in your more disturbed dreams - 400 million euros to build, 40 million a year to run - 15 performances a year.

The airport that has never seen a single plane land. The theme park built in a place where the summer heat rises above 40C (104F).

Why why why????

Yes, Spain - where the arrival of the foreign media is a juicy story for the local papers but where massive white elephant projects went unquestioned for a decade, and where the banks that funded them, boards stuffed with appointed politicians, have now gone bust.

The banks that funded all these white elephant projects were appointed politicians.

Did you catch that? Government was involved in the banks. Kind of like how our government forced banks to make sub-prime loans in the US.

BBC News - The white elephants that dragged Spain into the red

It has one of the longest runways in Europe but today there are no planes, only hawks and falcons gliding in the still heat over the arid yellow landscape of Don Quixote's Castilla La Mancha.

The airport of Ciudad Real opened in 2008 but it closed in April 2012. The luggage trolleys are now trussed together in the car park gathering dust and cobwebs.

It is not the only white elephant to stomp across Spain's landscape. It is merely one of the herd, a monument to the country's burst construction bubble which brought down its banks.

Why why why???

Before their collapse, Spain's local savings banks (the cajas), were different from other banks in one crucial way - local politicians sat on the board. So companies needed political support for large projects to encourage the cajas to invest.

Both the main political parties were in favour says Santiago Moreno, a spokesman for the socialist PSOE party which controlled the regional government at the time.

"Expert studies commissioned by the airport investors said it would create 6,000 jobs and a boom for the economy. There would have been a before and after for Ciudad Real."

Again, the banks in Spain had local politicians that sat on the board of those banks. The primary party involved..... SOCIALISTS.

Notice also those "expert studies" that claimed 'if you build it, they will come' crap. The same exact 'infrastructure' bull sh!t that leftists have been spewing here in the US.

If you build this infrastructure, it will create 2342397 Billion jobs.... instead the airport with the longest runway in all of Europe, is closed after 4 years, and is now a deserted wasteland.

BBC News - Spain's regional governments: How they got into trouble

The regional governments also found themselves spending more - on big infrastructure projects, on education for the immigrants' children, as well as on providing increasingly expensive healthcare, especially for the growing elderly population.

Well looky there... it's like a socialist manifesto.

Infrastructure projects √
Education spending √
Health care spending √

Well my goodness.... they should be living in utopia by now. The workers paradise!

Back to the point. Yes, blame government. It was politicians in the banks, that pushed through these white elephant projects. No completely private bank, would have funded an airport in Castellon, in which not one single major carrier had signed up to service, prior to it's construction, and to this day has yet to have a single commercial flight land at.

And if that isn't enough evidence for you, a $375,000, 24 metre tall statue of Carlos Fabra, the formerly powerful local politician who was the driving force behind its construction, was erected in the airport.

The problem in Spain, as documented by the BBC, was socialism. It was government. Not Citigroup.

 

[gnarlylove]

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

See, you had it way back here, then you lost it again.

The problem is you are equivocating between (very slow) genetic modification and (biotechnology) genetic modification (i.e. "GMO").

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification. They are not interchangeable or synonymous as you have continued to mistake. They use distinct methods and have distinct outcomes. (Slow/old) genetic modification is done through seed selection or pedigree. (Fast/new) genetic modification is done through biotechnology.

Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"? Only one type of genetic modification has. You need to distinguish between the two types of genetic modification. You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification. Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification. It was invented in 1980s and is a very different method and produced very different results that the other type of genetic modification.

Are we on the same page now? Surely by now you would not tell me that genetic modification has been going on for millenia unless you specified which type. Thank you very much.

That wasn't hard now was it? You made it hard because you are stubborn and blockheaded. It is not hard to understand that sometimes one word has multiple meanings and it essential to specify your specific meaning in order to advance rational discussion. It's clear you are not keen on words having multiple meanings and you especially failed to recognize this over 6 pages of dialogue. Most people would have understood the difference 5 pages ago but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point, you kept interchanging the words as if they mean the same thing and this is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of equivocation. Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

Hopefully next time in discussion you'll be more clear and understand why it matters to be clear. That's your lesson for the week. Be clear and beware of multiple meanings for the same word.

 

[gnarlylove]

Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

 

[georgephillip]

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"

Citigroup never went bankrupt.

Why not?

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

 

[bripat9643]

Why not?

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

The only government jobs Obama has "slashed" are in the military. Employment of civilians in the government is mushrooming.

 

[georgephillip]

Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.

Bernie Sanders for President?

 

[Erand7899]

Why not?

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

The "government sector" is another left wing abuse of the language, designed to mislead the ill informed, and is commonly referred to as propaganda.

Yes, state and local government jobs have declined considerably since the recession, but federal government jobs have not declined. Obama has little, if any, control of state and local government jobs, but if you lump them all together in a term called "government sector", you can make it appear that Obama has reduced the size of the federal government.

Obviously, you failed to figure that out for yourself. Much like you have failed to figure out most of the Obama lies.

 

[georgephillip]

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

The only government jobs Obama has "slashed" are in the military. Employment of civilians in the government is mushrooming.

"From 2004 to 2012, the federal non-postal civilian workforce grew by 258,882 employees, from 1.88 million to 2.13 million (14 percent). Permanent career employees accounted for most of the growth, increasing by 256,718 employees, from 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (15 percent). Three agencies--the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)--accounted for about 94 percent of this increase."

U.S. GAO - Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and Compensation

 

[georgephillip]

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

The "government sector" is another left wing abuse of the language, designed to mislead the ill informed, and is commonly referred to as propaganda.

Yes, state and local government jobs have declined considerably since the recession, but federal government jobs have not declined. Obama has little, if any, control of state and local government jobs, but if you lump them all together in a term called "government sector", you can make it appear that Obama has reduced the size of the federal government.

Obviously, you failed to figure that out for yourself. Much like you have failed to figure out most of the Obama lies.

Not the lie that Obama's a socialist...how about you?

 

[gnarlylove]

Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.

"And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

"While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly.

"Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

"Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.

"Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).

"In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.

"That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."

Now...blame "government."

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"

Citigroup never went bankrupt.

Why not?

Because too many people rely on Citigroug for it to simply close and die like capitalism preaches from the mountaintops for regular businesses.

For example, in Boise Idaho there is a children hospital for crippled who held bonds for decades in citigroup. So either we send the children into the snow or we save the private enterprise.

I wonder why Androw believes in something that doesn't exist because its inhuman, namely capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

"Now it can be told: The bank that exposed the federal government to the greatest potential loss during the government bailout was Citigroup, which received a grand total of $476.2 billion in cash and guarantees, according to a new report of the Congressional Oversight Panel which oversees the TARP program."

Citigroup Tops List of Banks Who Received Federal Aid

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

See, you had it way back here, then you lost it again.

The problem is you are equivocating between (very slow) genetic modification and (biotechnology) genetic modification (i.e. "GMO").

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification. They are not interchangeable or synonymous as you have continued to mistake. They use distinct methods and have distinct outcomes. (Slow/old) genetic modification is done through seed selection or pedigree. (Fast/new) genetic modification is done through biotechnology.

Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"? Only one type of genetic modification has. You need to distinguish between the two types of genetic modification. You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification. Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification. It was invented in 1980s and is a very different method and produced very different results that the other type of genetic modification.

Are we on the same page now? Surely by now you would not tell me that genetic modification has been going on for millenia unless you specified which type. Thank you very much.

That wasn't hard now was it? You made it hard because you are stubborn and blockheaded. It is not hard to understand that sometimes one word has multiple meanings and it essential to specify your specific meaning in order to advance rational discussion. It's clear you are not keen on words having multiple meanings and you especially failed to recognize this over 6 pages of dialogue. Most people would have understood the difference 5 pages ago but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point, you kept interchanging the words as if they mean the same thing and this is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of equivocation. Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

Hopefully next time in discussion you'll be more clear and understand why it matters to be clear. That's your lesson for the week. Be clear and beware of multiple meanings for the same word.

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.

Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.

You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification.

Nope. Never did that.

Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification.

Nope, never thought that.

Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"?

Now do you realize why I mocked your previous posts?

I said this:

"GMO is a genetically modified organism.

Do you deny that humans have genetically modified plants for thousands of years?"

And you disagreed, with this:

"GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning"

Are we on the same page now?

I don't know. Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?

You made it hard because you are stubborn

I am stubborn, that's why I keep pointing out your errors.

but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point

What was your point?
Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.

Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.

Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago. It was 31 odd years ago that seeds were modified in ways that are new.

Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?

Yes I agree. Humans have selected seeds for a long time. Humans have only modified seeds the way Monsanto has for the last 31 years.

What was your point?
Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?

I have repeated "this is my point" or "my whole point is this" and somehow you still have to ask about it. I never made value judgments on new genetic modification or the old. All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical. They have different methods, different techniques, and indeed different results. So to say people should accept the new type of GMO because it is the same thing as the old GMO is frankly stupid. They are qualitatively different. This qualitative difference raises new questions that did not exist prior to the new type of genetic modification. I am NOT making a value judgment, I am simply pointing out that they are different with different results.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.

Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.

Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago. It was 31 odd years ago that seeds were modified in ways that are new.

Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?

Yes I agree. Humans have selected seeds for a long time. Humans have only modified seeds the way Monsanto has for the last 31 years.

What was your point?
Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?

I have repeated "this is my point" or "my whole point is this" and somehow you still have to ask about it. I never made value judgments on new genetic modification or the old. All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical. They have different methods, different techniques, and indeed different results. So to say people should accept the new type of GMO because it is the same thing as the old GMO is frankly stupid. They are qualitatively different. This qualitative difference raises new questions that did not exist prior to the new type of genetic modification. I am NOT making a value judgment, I am simply pointing out that they are different with different results.

Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.

The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.

Yes I agree.

Excellent! Took you long enough.

All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical.

Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.

 

[georgephillip]

"Plants equipped with a terminator gene grow up just like other plants, with one crucial exception—farmers can't grow anything from the seed they produce.

"This feat of genetic engineering has caused a world-class ruckus, and renewed commercial interest in the trait is sure to put the town in the spotlight. ¦ Depending on whom you talk to, the terminator gene—known by its makers as the Technology Protection System—is either a great safeguard against possible hazards in the brave new world of biotechnology or a threat to the world food supply.

Terminator Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Plants equipped with a terminator gene grow up just like other plants, with one crucial exception—farmers can't grow anything from the seed they produce.

"This feat of genetic engineering has caused a world-class ruckus, and renewed commercial interest in the trait is sure to put the town in the spotlight. ¦ Depending on whom you talk to, the terminator gene—known by its makers as the Technology Protection System—is either a great safeguard against possible hazards in the brave new world of biotechnology or a threat to the world food supply.

Terminator Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com

2003?
Why don't you list all seeds currently sold with "terminator gene" technology?

FYI, current high yield hybrid seeds don't give farmers seeds that they can plant the next year either. Been that way for many decades. Hybrids don't breed true.
Farmers have to buy new seeds every year.

 

[gnarlylove]

Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.

The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.

No one has said old genetic modification is bad and no one has said we should avoid it. However, the new genetic modification that started in 1980s is different. It uses different methods and produces different results. People wonder how these differences affect the plant since new bio-engineering is not the same thing as regular, slow modification over generations. Thus, in order to be "safe" one only needs to avoid the new type of genetic modification. No one thinks the old type is bad or unusual.

Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.

You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. This is obviously false. To avoid new bio-engineering seeds does not require that people avoid the old genetic modification.

 

[Andylusion]

Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

I completely disagree with everything you just said.

First off, you realize that if what you just said is in fact true, then you yourself are wasting your vote as well.

"Both parties are the same"
"You are wasting your vote if you don't vote Democrap or Republican"

Hur? You don't see a problem here?

However, my real problem is with the party politics. I sarcastically refer to 'Democraps', because generally speaking it is in fact Democraps that defend law breakers (Clinton), and support socialism.

[ame=http://youtu.be/o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]

That said...

There are, and have been, Democrats that I would have no problem at all voting for, even for president.

Equally there are and were Republicans I would never even entertain the thought of voting for. McCain and Romney for example.

The problem is the ideology, not the political party. A political party is just that.... it's a political party. They will change their stance on a moments notice, to whatever they believe will best allow them to win.

That's why you always vote based on the individual if you are smart, not what party they are from.

And lastly, that whole "you are wasting your vote, if you vote for anyone not a Democrap or Republican".... do you not see that this is exactly what they want you to believe?

More often than not, merely giving a traditional candidate a tough fight, will force that candidate to change their stance to match the public. The tea party hasn't been super effective at having their specifically supported politicians elected.... but simply by challenging mainstream Republicans, they have forced them to move in the direction they want many times.

Similarly, the more we vote for alternative candidates, the more we can send a message.

From what I've seen, politics is far more responsive to what people want, than we realize as a nation. The problem is, we the people are not consistent on what we want.

 

[Andylusion]

Why not?

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.

All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong. Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.

When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.

That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia. ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".

Whatever. No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?