edit

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 11:53am

dmax wrote:

Rupert Murdoch seems to be working hard to maintain the GOP in power, in order to maintain his wealth. His ownership of Fox, and the lies it spreads (e.g., "support corporations in order to help the working class"), seems to be the primary tool used to maintain its power.

The recent revelations that Murdoch has put entire governments into power in the UK are something that we in the US should investigate immediately and thoroughly. This is a big alarm about just how many of the shadowy characters like Murdoch that control the GOP aren't American. Although Murdoch appears to be nominally a US citizen, it's been pointed out that the time frame, methods and reasons for obtaining that citizenship may void his US citizenship. Murdoch was born a citizen of the UK, but when Australia became independent, he also became an Australian citizen. AFAIK he has never renounced any of his previous nationalities or surrendered his non-US passports. Although he has enough wealth to travel extensively, it looks like Australia is where he makes his home.

There's ample evidence that GOP policies have done substantial to the US. There's ample evidence that News Corp has functioned as the prime mouthpiece of the GOP. There's ample evidence that News Corp has been used by Murdoch for his personal agendas ("personal piggie bank" etc.). All of this points to the GOP being an agent of foreign powers, and collectively meets all the criteria for treason. That's huge!

Part of that screed, of course, was its instant dislike of the new, Democrat, President - regardless of his talents or intent to better the country. He was immediately confronted with red-faced constituents complaining that he was a foreigner or a socialist. After he was elected...

And who told those lies to the red-faced people? Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Fortunately, it's become so ludicrous that people are seeing through it.

If only! The problem is that the Big Lie (ie. telling a lie that's so outrageous that many can't believe that anyone would be so brash, and therefore assume it must be true) is a tactic that the GOP has used with tremendous success for decades.

I'm willing to fight for my country against powers foreign or domestic that threaten it. But I can't ignore the history books that chronicle the demise of many other great societies. Those of us who have the education to understand the issues, the diligence to separate the facts from the chaff and the intelligence to make responsible decisions just don't have the ability to stop the momentum.

All too often I feel like Private Joe Bauers in Idiocracy, who wakes up in a future US whose citizens have an average IQ well into the region of severe mental retardation. Bauers was an Army clerk, not a warrior. So in this future that uses violence as the prime means of persuasion, just trying to communicate proves to be an exercise in frustration. It's a bit frightening how much this B movie so closely resembles what's going on in the here and now.

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:26am

DaveInVA wrote:

I've seen a lot of unbalanced people with homes too....

kettle...

j/k...

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:25am

dmax wrote:

Rupert Murdoch seems to be working hard to maintain the GOP in power, in order to maintain his wealth. His ownership of Fox, and the lies it spreads (e.g., "support corporations in order to help the working class"), seems to be the primary tool used to maintain its power. Part of that screed, of course, was its instant dislike of the new, Democrat, President - regardless of his talents or intent to better the country. He was immediately confronted with red-faced constituents complaining that he was a foreigner or a socialist. After he was elected...

Fortunately, it's become so ludicrous that people are seeing through it.

The 2012 elections should be very interesting

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:24am

Servo wrote:

And only GOP operatives like AFP would make non sequitur, apples-to-oranges comparisons and steadfastly refuse to tell any truths.

Comparing the symbolic act of protest by a Senator who had the guts to stand up to the biggest war criminal of the 21st century to a President who spends his political capital freely to end a de facto hostage situation does prove one thing however: Barack Obama is working hard to help his country, and the GOP is working hard to destroy it.

Rupert Murdoch seems to be working hard to maintain the GOP in power, in order to maintain his wealth. His ownership of Fox, and the lies it spreads (e.g., "support corporations in order to help the working class"), seems to be the primary tool used to maintain its power. Part of that screed, of course, was its instant dislike of the new, Democrat, President - regardless of his talents or intent to better the country. He was immediately confronted with red-faced constituents complaining that he was a foreigner or a socialist. After he was elected...

Fortunately, it's become so ludicrous that people are seeing through it.

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:23am

cc_rider wrote:

I've seen a lot of unbalanced homeless people though.

I've seen a lot of unbalanced people with homes too....

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:20am

sirdroseph wrote:

I never saw a homeless person with an unbalanced checkbook.

I've seen a lot of unbalanced homeless people though.

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:17am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

GOP thinks it's a done deal...

I never saw a homeless person with an unbalanced checkbook.

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 9:09am

GOP thinks it's a done deal...

edit: I direct your attention to the dateline on the "Obama's Last Day" highly original concept graphic...

Posted: Aug 1, 2011 - 8:50am

LowPhreak wrote:

At this time, both parties are wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporations and the wealthy...

Really? You're going to use a Republican talking point and tell everyone to throw the baby out with the bathwater? That's f***ed up.

So why is the first President of the United States of America of color in the White House? If what you said was true, there wouldn't be a sitting Democrat at all. Even large corporations watch the bottom line, and wouldn't spend twice as much for unnecessary redundancy when their CEOs could give that money to themselves. Even if they needed a token Democrat, they wouldn't dream of picking one whose complexion is closer to the lawn jockey in their front yard!

I seem to recall that President Obama's Presidential campaign raised record-breaking amounts of money $10 and $20 at a time, from millions of individuals, not from Big Business of their PACs. I distinctly remember his challenger throwing a fit when that was revealed.

But does it really matter where the money comes from, as long as the candidate remains honorable and ethical? I've been keeping tabs on both parties since my first election season in 1980. Although personal failings in their personal lives is a given since we're all human, one party has emerged as being consistent over the years in lying, big and often, to the American people. Those lies range from libel and slander of all opposition (not just challengers, but everyday people as well), to doing the polar opposite of their campaign promises etc. etc. etc. I've also seen the operatives of this party close ranks and showing amazing discipline in putting forth an organized front of rapid fire talking points that are not only totally false, but often mean spirited as well.

I'm not beholden to any political party, but when it comes to making a choice to back a sinner or Satan, the decision is easy.

Posted: Jul 31, 2011 - 11:26pm

What a conundrum.

Posted: Jul 31, 2011 - 10:58pm

miamizsun wrote:

So who are you voting for and what do you see as a viable solution?

Regards

At this time, both parties are wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporations and the wealthy, thus I won't vote for them. The obvious solution would be to change that wholesale, but it would require fat, apathetic, ill-informed Murkins to actually throw the bastards out and start over.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 9:34pm

Bush Cancels Trip Abroad in Fear of Being Prosecuted for Torture

The facts speak for themselves. {#Rolleyes}

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 4:55pm

And only GOP operatives like AFP would make non sequitur, apples-to-oranges comparisons and steadfastly refuse to tell any truths.

Comparing the symbolic act of protest by a Senator who had the guts to stand up to the biggest war criminal of the 21st century to a President who spends his political capital freely to end a de facto hostage situation does prove one thing however: Barack Obama is working hard to help his country, and the GOP is working hard to destroy it.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 2:46pm

Background

AFP was founded in 2004 when Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) split into FreedomWorks (formerly Citizens for a Sound Economy), for 501(c)(4) advocacy activity, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (formerly the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation). Dick Armey, who had become chair of CSE in 2003 after retiring from Congress,^<2> stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David H. Koch stayed as Chairman of Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Like CSE, AFP was founded with the support of David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries.^<3>^<4>^<5> Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) had been established in 1984 by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch. "CSE received almost $5 million from various Koch foundations between 1986 and 1990, and David Koch and several Koch Industries employees serve as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation."^<6>

<edit> Leadership and structure

Like Citizens for a Sound Economy before it, Americans for Prosperity consists of two separate entities: Americans for Prosperity (a 501(c)(4) organization^<7> established in 2004) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation (a 501(c)(3) organization^<7> established in 1984 as the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. Americans for Prosperity is led on the national level by its president, Tim Phillips, a former partner in the public affairs and public relations firm, Century Strategies with Ralph Reed (of Christian Coalition fame).^<8>^<9>^<10> Other national staff include: Phil Kerpen, director of policy; and Erik Telford, director of AFP's RightOnline new media program. Art Pope,^<11>^<12> James C. Miller, James E. Stephenson, and Frayda Levy serve on the board of directors.

From 2003 to 2007 AFP was led by Nancy Pfotenhauer (Koch Industries' chief lobbyist from 1996 to 2001), who left to become an adviser for the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign.

AFP's web site lists 23 staffed state chapters. ^<13>

<edit> Funding

Media Transparency says that Americans for Prosperity Foundation has received seven grants totaling $1,181,000 between 2004 to 2006 with $1 million coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the Koch Family Foundations.^<14>

Koch Industries reports that, in 2009, less than 10 percent of AFP and AFP Foundation’s funding was Koch-related. ^<15>

In its 2007 annual tax return, the AFP Foundation reported revenue of $5.7 million with expenditures of nearly $6.8 million. While the AFP Foundation ran at a loss that year, it had reserves. Of its expenditure, $2.1 million went to national office operations with just over $2.9 million allocated to the state-based chapters.

Based on its financial operations and programs, the independent Charity Navigator nonprofit review organization gave Americans For Prosperity Foundation a three-star rating out of four stars, and a 51 out of a possible 60 points.^<16>

It was reported in early 2011 that AFP's budget grew to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years prior.^<17>

In a August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported that the brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial and organizational support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.^<18>

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 12:05pm

When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 11:49am

When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 10:46am

winter wrote:

I don't think it's quite that simple. I don't care if it's the Democrats and Republicans, the Whigs and the Know-Nothings, or the Sharks and the Jets. Vote for the candidate. Vote for the ideas. If those ideas happen to be on the Democrats' platform, so be it. If the candidates you like happen to be Republican, so be it.

Like buzz said, there will always be parties. What I would like to see is a government that takes no notice of them. Take party affiliations off the ballot. Take reapportionment of districts out of the hands of those who get elected from the districts. No more "leader of the majority party controls committee appointments" nonsense. No whips and majority/minority leaders trying to persuade representatives to vote the party line.

How that would be done is another question.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 10:42am

sirdroseph wrote:

Yes, I have always been a fierce independent who has always voted but never registered with either party and I have always voted for the person with mixed results. I am actually undefeated in Presidential elections (starting with Reagan in 1980) and I apologize for that! {#Lol}

Unfortunately though at virtually all levels the ones with the D or the R attached to the names are the only ones that have any chance in the end. I have voted all Independent numerous times which of course means that my candidate never won in these instances. Problem is the only way we as voters can make a difference in this regard is if everybody just refused to vote for a D or an R which will never happen.

I don't think it's quite that simple. I don't care if it's the Democrats and Republicans, the Whigs and the Know-Nothings, or the Sharks and the Jets. Vote for the candidate. Vote for the ideas. If those ideas happen to be on the Democrats' platform, so be it. If the candidates you like happen to be Republican, so be it.

Like buzz said, there will always be parties. What I would like to see is a government that takes no notice of them. Take party affiliations off the ballot. Take reapportionment of districts out of the hands of those who get elected from the districts. No more "leader of the majority party controls committee appointments" nonsense. No whips and majority/minority leaders trying to persuade representatives to vote the party line.

How that would be done is another question.

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 10:41am

buzz wrote:

who's going to give it to you? the dems and repubs?

good luck with that.
party on

Well you got me there! {#Lol}

End of circle
party on {#Cowboy}

Posted: Jul 30, 2011 - 10:36am

sirdroseph wrote:

Strict campaign finance reform is where it starts, as they say, follow the money.

who's going to give it to you? the dems and repubs?

good luck with that.
party on