We are governed by those who refuse to represent us.
By louisehartmann
Yesterday, the majority of Senators voted to pass a background check bill, meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But that majority wasn't enough to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to turn that bill into law. The final vote was 54 to 46. Four Republicans voted to support the background check measure, and four Democrats voted against it.
Yesterday, 46 members of the upper chamber said doing absolutely nothing is an adequate response to the Newtown massacre, and the thousands of gun deaths that have taken place since. Forty-six Senators voted against a measure that the vast majority of Americans support.
President Obama spoke from the Rose Garden shortly after the vote, and directly addressed those who prevented the measure from passing. He said, “I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what?... It begs the question, who are we here to represent?” It's certainly clear that there are 46 senators who choose not to represent the will of the people, and preferred to guarantee a victory for the gun lobby instead.
As President Obama said yesterday, “this isn't over.” As a nation, we will not accept that doing nothing is the appropriate response to a tragedy. We are better than that. Poll after Poll show that over 90 percent of our nation support background checks, and the majority of Americans support stronger gun control laws in general.
We cannot allow this country to be governed by those who refuse to represent us. Come next election, we must remind our elected leaders that they work for us. And if they refuse to carry out the will of the people, than the people will find leaders that will.
Comments
#2
Ginico55: Yes I agree that the mental illness issue is complicated, but we could keep those who are known to have issues from harming others with guns. My father is bi-polar and my grandmother was schizophrenic and my son suffers from PTSD from his time in the Iraq War, so I know the difficulties.
I don't have much faith in the K-RATS of this Supreme Court to do anything that resembles a logical judgement.
I wish you luck with the struggle, one I am familiar with.
#3
To the several posters who believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed: Consider the dangers that faced the founders when they penned the 2nd. The country faced a very ruthless colonial power in Great Britain. We were a "rogue state" in the eyes of the Brits, and fair game for their fleet and their army (much as our own government views Pakistan today).
Today we live in a society of 300+ million, governed by a ruling elite that controls the courts, the politicians and therefore the machinery of state power (money, the police, the military, etc.) The will of the people is routinely ignored. What's more, we see that trend increasing. The 'government" of this country is quite at home with genocide. In my lifetime it started in Viet Nam and has extended to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of the other protections afforded our own people by the Constitution have been severely weakened in recent times; few people will argue that fact. How long will it be until our own ruling class turns its focus inward, as all despots eventually do (China with Tiennamen Square, Hitler with the Third Reich, post revolution Soviet Russia)?
My question to you is this: Do you feel that you live in a LESS dangerous world today than existed at the time the founders added the Second Amendment? And what if you DO feel that your welfare will be protected and it turns out that you're wrong?
I have never advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government. Nonviolent means is far less risky and probably a superior method of changing the power structure as others here have observed. But I am completely in favor of the people of this country keeping a tight grip on the one thing at our disposal that will ultimately deter total subjugation of the people (flowing from policy decisions from the top down through brutal police enforcement) and that would be our right to bear arms. This one consideration vastly outweighs all the tragic school shootings, in my opinion. We need to seek other solutions to the very real problem of gun violence, but not by abolishing the Second Amendment.
#4
I think people don't want background checks because they are worried about who will be doing them.
#5
Funny how some anti-gun nuts want to repeal the 2nd Amendment...sounds just like the Republicans (like Bush) in thinking of the Constitution as "just a quaint piece of paper" and wanting to repeal parts of it they didn't like either.
Maybe we should prevent the "mentally ill" from running for public office and from working in the Pentagon as high ranked military officials. And have them analyzed by a multi-partisan panel of psychiatrists. Before you are allowed to attain those positions you should need to be periodically certified to be sane. Maybe all those hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children that have been murdered by our military and political "crazies" would have been spared. And, one thing many gun control advocates completely overlook is that the US could very easily morph into a new totalitarian state just like in Nazi Germany, one that is controlled by pious, holier-than-thou, Torquemadas who , because of their "insanity", would have no problem setting up their own gas chambers to get rid of people that won't knuckle under to their narrowly defined belief systems. Or, maybe they conjure up in their syphalitic minds that we should worship space aliens and anyone who doesn't deserves to be imprisoned and sent to the gas-chambers. Or, maybe, some neo-Caligula gets into power and gets his jollies by watching selected Americans beheaded in the arena. Sounds pretty far-fetch, maybe, but these things creep up on otherwise orderly and sane societies. When the majority of people own guns, the really big crazies can be kept in check. The little crazies might do some little damage. But the really big crazies can do one hell of a lot of damage to millions of people. We need to hold on to our guns otherwise we will have no hand to play...we will be totally at the mercy of whatever deranged people that manipulate their way to the top. With lots of guns in the hands of the majority of the citizens, we have a chance...without them...we have no chance at all.
#6
Quote carolonthecoast:
I think people don't want background checks because they are worried about who will be doing them.
That's for sure! And if you consider the kind of craziness that has gone on the past 10 years...slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East...all stemming from the greed and lies of those rich and powerful crazies in the US..and even many other times and places around the world before that...it will be the rich and powerful crazies trying to weed out people that did not have the correct political or religious beliefs. Only right-wing gun nuts that believe their right-wing political beliefs are blessed by Jesus will be considered sane enough to own weapons. Only the real crazies will own guns and the sane ones will have been weeded out.
Onward Christian soldiers...marching off to war...with the cross of Jesus...well, you get the picture.
#7
Eliofight ~ You make a good point. Why try to stop illegal violence perpetrated by criminals and mentally ill with legislation. This implys that criminals and the mentally ill desire to use guns to commit crimes; but only guns that they obtain legally?
Kind of stupid logic if you ask me. PD once said he had a job where he was paid well to stand around and do basically nothing. I wanted to say, "Wow Palindromedary, I did'nt know you were once a Congressman!"
#8
DAnnemarc: Well, it was not exactly "stand around and do nothing" it was "sit around and type up silly do-nothing "make-work" reports that nobody read" and drive to various Gas/Oil Separation plants (GOSPs), mostly, around the Arabian Gulf side of the Arabian shield (aka: the eastern province) and watch Filipinos do all the work while pretending to keep an eye on them and, perhaps, make recommendation as to how things might be done better. However, those Filipinos were very well trained by the other contract companies who were paid scads of money to have the Filipinos do all the work.
Basically, I suppose, I did about as much work as the typical office supervisor and some of their office workers anywhere in the US.
Do you know that some office workers have so much time on their hands, in their offices, that they can actually make extra money, at their desks, by using their computers (especially their cameras) in creative ways. I won't go into details...you'll just have to use your imagination.
Some web sites can actually let you view the very "talented" things they can do..and, of course, they know they are being watched, and want to be watched, on-line. Of course, she may not have actually been in a real office, despite being able to hear other office workers talking on the phones...that could have been faked too. I'm sure a real business would have IT guys stop this kind of thing....yeah, right! Of course, I don't know any of this first hand...just what I hear from other people. ;-}
#9
Uh, oh, time to go jump out of another airplane!
#10
60% does not equal 90%
#11
Chuckle8 - You totally missed the point. My point was that Obama will use a number like 90% to support his position on something like gun control while blowing off other strong public sentiment on issues where the public is obviously opposed to policy.
Personally, I think the 90% number is suspect anyway, if only because it seems impossible to get 90% of the people in this country to agree on anything. But if public opinion really was that unified I think it must have been in response to a really simplistic question like "do you support background checks for firearms purchases". Even the NRA supports that. It's when the questions get more nuanced that people become less single minded. But if you want to cling to that 90% number then you go right ahead.
#12
Palindromedary ~ I'd want to consider you a good friend. You should know that I have many other close friends from all ethnicity's who are office workers, supervisors, and two of my dearest, life long, best friends in the world are Filipino. I know you meant no offense by it but I'm very sensitive to racial degradation of any kind; especially, toward groups I've built strong rapport with. I must reluctantly ask, why are Filipinos so sought after in the Oil Industry? Your insightful response would be deeply appreciated.
#13
Chew On This...
We do not need "more" gun control laws! Nor do we need to ban guns and and restrict clip/magazine capacity. The Boston Bombing is testiment to this! To simply write more gun laws is absolutly foolish as it only creates a "false sense of security", and furthers our country from resolving more serious and costly issues such as establishing an effective and affordable Universal Health Care System, Improving Education, rebuilding our domestic industries and abolishing a costly and unnecessary Millitary Industrial Complex. The United States has NO buisness meddleing in the political affairs, and forcing U.S. policy on other Soverning Nations, when we have so many of our own domestic issues to address. But I digress...
In 2007 "candidate" Obama said; "We know what we need to do; We've got to enforce the gun control laws that are already on the books". He also suggested cracking down on straw man purchases and "unscrupulous gun dealers".
After the Newtown massacre "President" Obama asked "Can we honestly say we are doing enough"? Adding that "Surely we can do better than this."
It is fair to say that President Obama has forgotten the words of Candidate Obama...But that is just par for the course! President Obama is the one responsable for not doing "better than this".
Since Obama took office in 2008 there have been several gun massacres that made national coverage; Yet the Obama Adminastration has never made enforcement of the excisting gun controi laws a political or policy priority.
During the Obama Adminastration Congress has failed provide the necessary funding for enforcing background checks. From FY2009 to FY2011 Congress failed to follow through with funding; granting only 5% of the total gross authorized amount during those three years of 900million dollars for gun control.
RESPONSABLE GUN OWNERS - even those who own Assault Rifles - do not deserve to be punished for the deliberate irresponabilities of our elected officials, as well as the ill minded agendas of those that commit such lethal acts on other people.
I ask you this; In the wake of the Boston bombing...Should we call for tougher laws and bans on Pressure Cookers, Black Duffle Bags, Marathons, and People with dark curly hair.
Life is often unfair. Often times bad things happen to good people, and yes we do have an obligation to seek justice. But in a society that has become increasingly more and more violent, justice has been reduced to merely revenge rather than a means to right a wrong and restablish peace.
As a society We rest on our laurels of when we have been right rather than face the challenges of when we have been wrong; opting to give-up , responding with knee jerk reactions...Wanting only to know "who" instead of "why". And the few times that a voice of reason has shouted fro the mountain tops and has pointed to the source of the problem - mostly a collective of social ignorance, greed, and bigotry - we as a nation collectivly say "NAY"!
More people are killed on a daily bases from auto accidents than high powered assault riffles...Why are we not collectively demanding a ban on automobiles? OR how about a ban on texting since one out of every five car accidents is do to texting while driving.
The bottom line is that NO amount of strict laws or "bans on..." is going to make life fair and safe. Life is what it is, their are no guarentees except death. I for one do not want to waste my time pining over such nonsense as bubble wrapping the world...Histroy has well proven that to do so only causes for greater problems.
namasta
Enjoy this day
#14
And now a word about background checks. I have been through 3 NICS checks and my constitutional rights were not infringed. For my fellow gun owners. The second ammendment is not an open ended suicide pact. Even Justice Scalia (not a favorite of mine) has said this. What we disagree with is coupling background check legislation to other firearms regulations which are infringments on our rights. Second, as I made clear in my earlier post legislation is now opposed because it is clear that the gun control lobby wants to use seemingly innocuous legislation as the opening wedge for much bigger things. So now we must fight it out and if that means that the gun control lobby gets nothing. So be it. On Magazine limitations. Let me remind my fellow gun owners that before the AR type weapons made their appearence the only hi-cap magazines were manufactured for full auto firarms which are largely out of the reach of most buyers. It was only after the introduction of civilian semi auto versions of the AR and the importation of AK type weapons from eastern europe and china that hi capacity magazines made their appearence. Those people who really felt the need for a gun for self defence made do with revolvers and semi-autos like the Model 1911 with 8 rounds! The fact is the use of hi-cap magazines is a matter of vanity and an overactive fantasy life. A lot of places make do with 10 round mag limits. But you are not going to have those limitations because of Senators like Feinstein and her fellow travelers who really do see these limitations as merely the opening wedge. Well now you get nothing. While I like the president and a lot of what he stands for he is dead wrong on firearms. Unfortunately his position smacks of political oportunism and that I cannot support. As I said in my earlier post if you want to know who killed gun legislation you need only look as far as your local gun control organization and their condescending, holier than thou attitudes. When some thug invades your home you will wonder what to do until the police who are a half hour a way come to your rescue or more likely to draw a chalk outline of your body on the floor and take lots of crime scene photographs, you can think about all the anti gun petitions you signed.
#15
First why are you reposting on the same thread? Second who are you addressing? Third why soooo looooong winded? And lastly, are you able to explain what it is about Obamney - as president - that you like?
#16
Nachos - I assume you were addressing me (Outback) as your post was in response to #62. I posted a response to Chuckles8 on the same thread because this is where all the exchanges took place. He didn't address me by name but I knew who he was talking to by context. Long winded? This, coming from you? (though I really like most everything you have to say ;-) Finally, there's not a flipping thing I like about Obama any more. He's a snake in the grass. A liar and a hypocrite. In other words, just another politician, when he could have made a real difference.
#17
Howdee Outback...No I was responding to NYTWEED's post 65. No worries though, I always lookforward to reading your responses, as well as several other regulars. Ever notice how there's always the same 6 to 10 people on this blog? That surprises me.
Hey did you receive Thoms News Letter for Friday the 19th? I never got the email.
#18
It seems to me that the gun control bill that was filibustered was more simplistic than the question you proposed. That would mean that more than 90% of the public were for it. I say more simple because of the 75 gun lower bound at gun shows.
Yet another percentage I want to state. When I say 1% I mean 0.01%.
I think Obama realizes he had to overcome the 1% to get anything done. IMO if he spoke out for what public sentiment wanted the 1% would harden, and he couldn't accomplish anything which is almost the way it is now. However in addition to nothing getting done, a worse effect for speaking strongly against the 1% would be the inspiration for them to spend even more money on the elections in 2014.
Some of the reasons I think Obama is still on my side.
1. Within the 1st 24 hours of his inaugration of 2009, he forced the release of the statistics of the top 400 families in the US. Dubya made it a state secret and Romney would have followed suit.
2. Six months ago he stopped the merger of Sprint and AT&T
#19
My message #69 was a reply to #62, an Outback message, not 63. I need to mention names and the numbers in my replies. Sorry. My dimentia will probably keep me making these errors in the future.
#20
This is a reply to NYTWEED. Why do you think any of this debate is about gun rights? I think it is all about the billions of dollars the gun manufacturers make. They certainly know which advertising firms to hire to make you think otherwise.
#21
reply to MMmmNachos. When the ban on assault weapons expired the number of deaths from assault weapons tripled.
When we required air bags and seat belts on cars, many lives were saved. This result in spite of many people still not wearing seat belts.
#22
It is about gun rights. If you think you are going to snuff out the firearms industry by kvetching about the NRA and the corportate power of gun manufacturers I think you are wasting your time. Firearms manufacturers make and market their products internationally. A lot of their product goes to various governments around the world. Some of these governments I probably do not like but that is capitalism. This was true in the past and it is true today. Westinghouse once made guns for the Tsar. What is it about firearms that gets so many folks bent out of shape? I have yet to see a tV commercial from Remington Arms or Browning. A few of them sponsor middle of night cable shows pitched at hunters but little more than that. When was the last time Winchester advertised in the Nation or the New York Review of Books? So they can't be doing much advertising. Most of the advertising any of them do is in print in specialty publications and displays at major firearms events like the NRA annual meeting. And now let me answer another poster at the same time. it is true I can be a bit long winded. You have the freedom not to read the post. But I try to back up what I say with some facts. if this makes things a little complicated for you I will try to use less difficult words in the future. As for the president. I have a lot of problems with Obama. His lack of experience left him vulnerable to attacks from the right. His naivite allowed the republicans to constantly snooker him with deals that they had no intention of honoring. I wish he had never involved himself in the firearms issue. it is poison for Democrats and can only work to their detriment. You may notice that Bernie Sanders of Vermont steers very clear of this issue whenever possible. So does Hillary Clinton for that matter and that is how she kept New York state's Senatorial delegaton Democratic. Obama never really billed himself as a great liberal we voted for and received what he was. They don't make radicals at Harvard Law School no matter what the sly foxes of Fox may say. So while you are all bashing Obama for not being quite as pure and perfect as you desire you might want to reflect on what damage a man like Mitt Romney could have done had he been elected president. (Sorry to be so long winded. Thank you for reading)
#23
Like most people, and this is not criticism, you are standing too close to the elephant to see that it is an elephant.
I do not disagree with the points you have found and are using to make your point, however, you disregard the bigger picture. Yes when air bags were installed head injuries decreased (slightly) but fractured bones - mainly wrist, and facial - and eye injuries increased (greatly), even in low speed collisions do to the force at which an air bag is deployed. Not to mention all the infants and toddlers that were killed before they informed the public not to put small children in the front seat of cars with passanger side airbags.
As for your testiment to death by assault riffles trippleing once the ban on them was lifted...Of course it did, but the criminals didn't change. It was the same usuale suspects..the same people that kill each other with 9mm, 22s, and .357s, baseball bats, and knives...And pressure cookers. In other words; The choice of weapon changed not the person (ill minded agenda, economically desperate, mentally unstable, sociopathic).
Now listen don't mistake my Anti-Draco Gun Law position on this subject as callous or discerning. I do recognize that gun violence in general is a huge problem, but it goes waaaaay beyond "The Gun". It's mostly economic, but also just in my life time mental illness has greatly increased, and the common practice here in the U.S. is to just pump people - who are already unstable - full of drugs that have dangerous side effects, and send them out into a hostle fast paced society, and expect them to function. As well we have been experiencing for the past 40 years the death of middle class America through the fraudulent actions of our own government.
I have family that has lived in Australia since the early 70's, I too lived there for 6 years in the early 90's when I graduated college. I have had several discussions with them regarding their views on gun control and violence. As my older brother pointed out to me it wasn't the banning of Assault Riffles that decreased gun violence in Australia; it was more so that Australia invested into improving their mental health care system and preventative medicine practice. All of which is covered under a Universal Health Care system. In fact today countries that regard their citizen's health, and education as a first priority have far less violence, and crime in general, compared to the U.S.
So what is your stance on Pressure Cookers?
#24
Your welcome NYTWEED. And I ment long winded in the sense that you had reposted the same rant twice.
As for Obama vs. Romney, your right about one thing; Obama was very inexperienced...He made it into office because he is black! And the second time because the majority of Americans are down right stupid and cast a fear vote. Further more Obama and Romney are one in the same; Neither support renegotiating trade agreements to bring jobs back to America. Neither Obama or Romney support prosecuting Wall Street Fraud, war crimes, and illegal spying on U.S. citizens. On Civil/Human Rights. Obama nor Romney support; closing Guantanamo Bay, federally protected marrage equality, repeal of NDAA indefinite detention provision, and repeal of the Patriot Act. On Immagration, both Romney and Obama support mass deportation of other-wise law abiding Immagrants. As for Taxes, both support Bush-era tax cuts for the weathiest Americans. Health Care...Obama seemed like a light of hope, but in the end neither he or Romney supported a single payer medicare-for-all healthcare system. The only difference between Obama and Romney, and it isn't anything to do with politics...Romney is white and Obama is black, but they both tap dance for the Corporate Puppet Master...And that ain't you or I!
#25
I think you are oversimplifying the election. There was a lot going on both in front and behind the scenes. Here is what I think. You are welcome to disagree. After the 47 percent tape came out Romney was stinking worse than sour milk. This was the nail in the political coffin. His arrogance over his tax returns and financial dealings, his flipflopping on one issue after another, his doggedly anti labor stance, and maybe most of all his campaign's remark about the etch-a-sketch were just a drum beat of bad publicity. Rat-ta-tat. The simple fact was that the republicans had noone credible to run. Rick Santorum, Rick perry. Good grief! Anyone with the least bit of savvy and credibility decided to stay out (e.g. Chris Christie of NJ) and tend to local business. I disagree that obama and Romney are one and the same. On the health care issue it was really Joe Lieberman and his insurance company friends in Hartford who torpedoed the single payer plan. I wish Obama had more political capital to beat up Lieberman with but he didn't. At least the camels nose is under the tent and there is hope for the future. A lot of people are getting a lot of health care benifits from the law as it was passed. Guantanamo bay is a small potatos issue. To be blunt I am not worrying about the civil rights of a 150 people who mostly do not like us. Two issues are of great importance. 1) the supreme court. Given the people who Bush appointed i would hate to see his (Romney's) court picks. 2)On medicare and social security I again quake in my boots what Romney would have done to these two programs which I personally depend on. There is a differance and a big one. if you are looking to make a revolution I will give you the names of some good gun dealers. Buy some guns, build the red army and get marchin'. But if you do this you will be dead or in jail within 3 to 6 months, maybe less. Too many people were looking for the revolutionary those sly foxes at Fox were constantly describing. He doesn't exist and never did. I don't mind saying that I voted for Hillary (primary) not because she was any kind of revolutionary but because she had the political experience and savy to take on the likes of Mitch Mcconnel (I think she would have eaten him alive and spit out the bones). I am sure that Obama and Romney have adjoining tents at the Bohimian Grove but on specific policies there really is a wide gulf seperating them. I'd like to sing the internationale at the next inauguration but that ain't gonna happen and I will not indulge in that kind of fantasy. In the meantime in the immortal words of Barry Fitzgerald "I think I'll join me comrades and talk a little treason."
#26
Quote DAnnemarc:
I know you meant no offense by it but I'm very sensitive to racial degradation of any kind;...
If you know that I meant no offense of a racial nature...then why have you even mentioned it in the way that you have? If you knew me better you'd know that I am far from being racially bigoted..and the reasons why.
You seem to me, however, very (perhaps overly) sensitive to several issues and even though you word your entries in a way that you are not making blatant accusations, it seems to me that you are making very suggestive ones. I don't know how in the world you could have interpreted what I said as racial in any way. The people I have a big problem is with people who are bigoted and feel racially superior to others. I'm surprised that, after all I have said over the past years on this blog site...re: the illegal US wars slaughtering innocent citizens in the Middle East...and their criminal behaviors and slaughters every where else in the world would have given a big clue that I am not a bigoted WASA (white anglo saxon atheist) (but I am a WASA) and definitely not a WASP or a WASC. I guess you might say that I am even less bigoted than God because at least I didn't command the Israelites to go down into the land of Canaan and slaughter everyone. Oh, excuse me, I know that that was the "old testament God". The "new testament god" is the new and approved one.
#27
Quote NYTWEED:[quote=AmpedStatus.org]
So while you are all bashing Obama for not being quite as pure and perfect as you desire you might want to reflect on what damage a man like Mitt Romney could have done had he been elected president.
Quote ampedstatus.org:
Obama Is A Bankster Puppet Who Brought On The Depression That The Republicans Never Could Have Gotten Away With. In a recent interview with Guns and Butter, Michael Hudson summed up the financial war against the American people, with a focus on the key role President Obama is playing:“He’s going to go down as the man who brought on the depression that the Republicans never could have gotten away with. Only a Democrat posing as a left-winger could support the anti-labor, anti-wage, pro-Wall Street policies that his advisers have been pressing….
The economy’s going under because Wall Street and investors realize that it’s a done deal. That Mr. Obama is going to succeed in pushing the economy much further into a depression. We need the depression in order to cut living standards and labor by 30 percent. We need a depression in order just to lower the wages of America and to have an excuse – of course, a depression is going to make the budget deficit even larger and the solution to the depression has already been written up, just like the invasion of Iraq was all written up before 9/11, the solution is going to be that the government is going to sell off its land, whatever is in the public domain.
(emphasis mine)
http://ampedstatus.org/obama-is-a-bankster-puppet-who-brought-on-the-dep...
And to add to the above Michael Hudson statement... I'd say that the American people and an antagonist Democrat Congress to a Republican administration would not have let the Republicans get away with a continuation of an obviously illegal war, based on lies, in the Middle East or the US torture gulags in Gitmo and elsewhere. But what we got was a Republican in Democrats clothes that tends to nullify any opposition from the Democrats (they are not going to make a Democrat President look bad).
#28
Quote MMmmNACHOS:
I do recognize that gun violence in general is a huge problem, but it goes waaaaay beyond "The Gun". It's mostly economic, but also just in my life time mental illness has greatly increased, and the common practice here in the U.S. is to just pump people - who are already unstable - full of drugs that have dangerous side effects, and send them out into a hostle fast paced society, and expect them to function. As well we have been experiencing for the past 40 years the death of middle class America through the fraudulent actions of our own government.
Very well said! Take away the guns and people will not have a means to protect themselves against criminals who have managed to get them illegally. You can't rely on the police to get there in time to save or protect you. They usually get there to write up and photograph the crime scene of the victim's body and/or bodies of family members.
#29
There's those 11:11s again...post #77 time. If it's not 11:11 it's 1:11 or 2:22 or 3:33 or 4:44 or 5:55 (or post 77)
Time for a piece of "Pi"
#30
Some of what you say, NYTWEED, in regards to the wishy-washiness of Romney and the other baffons of the 3rd reich I agree with. However, I will further say that I find your perspective regarding "the lesser of two evils" to be passé. Evil is evil! To say, or imply, that you voted responsabley by voiting for the lesser of two evils is completely absurd, and a perfect example of our societies diminishing expectations for true leadership and representation of the American Middle Class; the back bone of what once inspired a person to strive for greatness.
I don't disagree that Romney was a threat to the average American, and would have been more agressive, but after 4 years we are not in any better way with Obama, and so far it looks like his second term will be a complete mirror of his first.
Both Obama and Romney are Corporate Opportunist to the fullest degree. Obama's puppet strings are attached to Wall St.
If We the People of the United States of America ever want to have a true and great leader, one that represents the Bee Hive and not just the queen and her privledged few, then We the People must fullfill our duty to alter or abolish ANY government that becomes destructive of the Equal Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
One way to do this is to STOP BEING FOOLED by campaign rehtoric, and a bias media agenda (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. basically all Comercial Media). Stop cowering to corporate political threats from the Left and the Right. Inform yourself on who these Class Clowns do buisness with...Who is lining their pockets; that right their alone will tell you what kind of agenda these pricks really have. For example; During Obama's 2008 campaign Obama spoke big on Green Energy...That alternative energy sources, such as Solar, and Wind generated energy was the future of America. Yet Obama had received millions of dollars from the largest nuclear power company builders in the world...How is this not a conflict of intrest?
During the last election I wasn't sure which way it would go, but nor was I worried that if Romney was elected "things" would be worse. The one thing I did know...I wasn't going to be foolish and cast a fear vote. Now I wasn't so foolish to think that a 3rd party candidate would win...But, and it's a BIG BUT, I wanted to send a clear message that I, as a tax paying middle class American was not supportive of neither the Republican or Republicrates agenda.
#31
Hey, Nachos - sorry for the delay. I just returned here and was surprised at the amount of activity on an old thread. But why kill a good forum while it's producing good stuff.
Yes, I received Friday's post from Thom. I've noticed that sometimes these posts come in early and sometimes much later. Maybe not at all. Who knows what kind of algorithm they're using to keep down the rabble;-) Have you received it or would you like me to post the link here?
Well I'm totally with you on not voting for the 'lesser evil". I voted for Obama in '08 because he had said all the right things, and after two miserable Bush terms I was desperate to believe him. But it took only a couple of months after he took office for the alarm bells to start going off in my head. By the time November 2012 rolled around I had determined I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate simply as a protest to the 2 party status quo and so as not to endorse either candidate (though I did perceive that Romney would take the corporate vulturism to a whole new level). I figured that if any 3rd party candidate got even a measurable fraction of the vote, that might be a seed that could germinate.
Regarding all the banter about gun control here, in the media and in congress, I think it's just a red-herring to distract the masses from the real threat; and that would be the systematic destruction of our economy and our way of life in this country. Gun violence is a problem, no doubt, but it pales into insignificance compared to the damage being done by our corporations, the banks and the hedge fund boys on Wall Street. Those piranha that inhabit the 1% are raping the country and fleeing as fast as they can for gentler climes. By the time we finish arguing over whether gun violence is the NRA's fault or something inherently evil about a particular semi-automatic rifle or magazine, our Wall Street cat burglars' dirty work will have been accomplished and they'll be sitting on the beaches of their opulent villas far away, sipping expensive cognac, snickering.
In the mean time, don't be too anxious to disarm yourself, even if you have to rely on a sling shot. The day is coming soon when things are going to get very hard for those of us left behind.
#32
Thank you for your reply to my post. After four years of Obama I have no illusions but the gap between the lesser of two evils was vast. Romney was a man of little intellect and was perfectly willing to do what ever the right wing of the corporate class wanted him to do. Let there be no mistaking what the aim of the Koch brothers and their ilk was. The middle class being the dominant working class in this country needed to be whipped into shape and the best way to do this was to crash the economy and destroy what ever vestige of affluence and autonomy the middle class enjoyed. That was what Obama prevented. It is true that Obama was and is aligned with a big chunk of Wall Street. The relationship is symbiotic. Wall street continues to make money and Obama gets a certain amount of social stability. Most importantly the right wing of the Republican party is truly fascistic and we have so far avoided the worst of that. Given the composition of the congress Obama will not be allowed to do too much unless things change in 2014 at midterm. The right wing will just have to work a little harder at it since Obama now knows their game. No serious person is fooled by campaign rhetoric. And some good has come out of the democratic presidency. For example scientists can do stem cell research with getting eclesiastical permission. During the last election it became very plain that if Romney had gotten elected the Koch brothers and their ilk would be running the government through front men like grover Norquist and that is a pretty frightening prospect. obama has had to play a defensive game throughout but at least someone is playing defence. I truly wish the Democratic party had not gotten itself embroiled in the gun debate. As i said it is poison for a pack of east and west coast liberals who know little about the subject to fight on this one. I think for all the rhetoric most Democrats Obama included are glad they lost. Harry Reid was the only smart one. He traded off eliminating the filibuster to protect red state Democrats good thinking. If you are looking for saintliness and perfection do not look to politics you will not find it there.
Well i see no one has taken up my offer of directions to a nearby gun shop so I guess there aren't any true revolutionaries out there. "I think I'll join me comrades and talk a little treason"
#33
NYTWEED (because you were the last message in the thread and I agree with your view the most) - I like to think the gun debate had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with highlighting the fascist control of our government.
My favorite idea for a bumper sticker which I plan to repeat until someone says something about it is
REDUCE THE DEBT BY INCREASING THE DEFICIT
I sent such a suggestion to Bernie Sanders referring to Ravi Batra's analysis pointing out everytime we get near balancing the budget (i.e. small deficit) the stock market crashes. One of the best examples being the big crash after Clinton balanced the budget. What makes this example so good is that Obama seems to be trying to follow in Clinton's footsteps. Also, pointing out to Bernie, that when FDR tried to balance the budget early in his 2nd term unemployment became double digits and the stock market headed down. FDR quickly stopped trying to balance the budget. No response has come from Bernie yet.
#34
Quote Outback:
Gun violence is a problem, no doubt, but it pales into insignificance compared to the damage being done by our corporations, the banks and the hedge fund boys on Wall Street. Those piranha that inhabit the 1% are raping the country and fleeing as fast as they can for gentler climes.
So true!!!
#35
Quote chuckle8:
REDUCE THE DEBT BY INCREASING THE DEFICIT
Do you know what your dog understands when you talk to it?
When you say "Fido, you're such a good dog." (but without expression in your voice)?
"Fido, blah blah blah blah blah."
So most people would read your bumper sticker:
REDUCE THE Blah BY INCREASING THE Blah
And they might think "What is he, some kind of a communist?"
Although most people would have an inkling of what DEBT meant..but not on par with what it means on a national level. If you own the currency printing presses, you have a whole different level of understanding of what debt is than do most people.
What it really amounts to, I believe, is just another way of a few wealthy and powerful people to enforce slavery upon the masses. They'll use that game to squeeze people out of any rights or freedoms they thought they had...until...maybe...they'll snap and do something chaotic about it. Masses going berserk tend to change things really quickly....and it won't be pretty. That's why the ruling elite use mind games to slowly squeeze us.
They feed the people false hope with a corrupt two-party system and present one party as the savior of the people and then they screw the people even more while using the other party as the beast to avoid at all costs.
Very ingenious scam the ruling elite have going there. They win no matter who is in office. And the false hope they peddle, by getting the "savior party" elected, tends to let the built up pressure fizzle out. Then when the people start to realize they've been had...and start thinking about guillotining their local bankers and politicians, the ruling elite reload the people's heads with more false hope and promises.
The ruling elite know how to play us...because the majority of people have been fattened up for the slaughter...filled their heads full of superstitious ideas and non sequiturs combined with a strong desire of capitalist materialism...(want to super size those fries..buy a new car?)...glamorize those few who have managed to wheedle their way to the top...money-wise, power-wise. Give the herd the belief that they too can make it to the top. Make them all believe that if they just act now and buy a house, before the price goes up (bubble? what bubble?) then, they too can discover the road to riches...just like John McCain! And all the while the fattened up, lazy, superstitious cattle will be herded into the shoots for slaughter. Moooo!
#36
Palindromedary - My bumper sticker is mostly meant for people like Bernie Sanders and Obama. I would hope that the part that says reduce the debt would hardly lead anyone to call me a commie. However, to avoid that possibility I probably should put a couple of American flags on it.
Currently, I think the ruling elite is using the deficit argument to slaughter the 99%.
#37
chuckle8: yes, I agree!
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"Thom Hartmann’s book explains in simple language and with concrete research the details of the Neo-con’s war against the American middle class. It proves what many have intuited and serves to remind us that without a healthy, employed, and vital middle class, America is no more than the richest Third World country on the planet."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
You call it suppression, I call it protection. A few years ago, I attended a 912 meeting with some other Democrats - they were voicing their opinion of the 19th amendment. It was a real eye opener for me - they espoused the garbage on religion from Barton, the were all gun owners and one of the ladies dressed in Colonial dress talked about her "ankle bracelet" that allowed her to hide her gun under her long dress. The head of one of the prominant gun groups in Colorado gave a presentation in which he said his goal was to have NO Gun Rules. I asked him the question of while I respected HIS right to own a gun, where was MY protection to feel safe on the streets when there were now so many openly displaying their weaponry. How was one to determine who was a responsible gun owner and who wasn't. His reply . . . I am protected by the 2nd. amendment and you can't change that! We have to license cars, dogs, cats, and other things, we have to carry insurance for many things, why should we not protect ALL of the people and license guns that are not used for hunting and require insurance on those that possess them. WHY would our government have the RIGHT to address these issues to protect the masses?