They passed the Lilly Ledbetter (sp?) act in the first month of Obama's administration.

Palin -- You are talking about what fascism really is. I was talking about what people hear when Thom says it on the air.

Thanks, Willie W, for that reference to G.Carlin. So, true! And it is going to take way more than just voting for all Democrats because they are all owned by the ruling elite as well. So what is left...if you can't change things democratically? When democracy is a sham? There is only one thing that people don't want to hear about. So called liberals need to get over their fear of guns because that is the only thing that is going to protect them from the wolves with guns in the future. The preponderance of liberal fear and loathing of guns has written all over it....."screw me"! "screw me"! "I won't bite! I'm easy!" "I may complain a lot..but that won't matter at all!" The relatively few people who die each year of guns shot wounds, whether by accidental shootings, crimes, or school or theater shootings will pail in comparison to the mass slaughter of people without guns in the future.

If you think Hitler's Nazi concentration camps and gas houses were just things of the past you may be starkly awakened one day in the future when they start rounding up "undesirables" (perhaps liberals who have objected to being treated like cattle). We're really not all that civilized...if we can illegally invade and occupy and murder so many people in the Middle East with drones and missiles and going door to door killing the occupants then they are quite capable of doing the same in the US. In Nazi Germany it was "The Jewish Question". In the right wing controlled US it will be "The Liberal Question". Propaganda like "Dirty hippies deserve to die!" "Nothing but unwashed vermin!". "Dirty, smelly, unclean hippies carry communicable diseases." Doesn't matter if it is true or not...propagandists will use whatever lies they can to achieve their means.

Quote Palindromedary:Ok, DAnnemarc, so you say the most dangerous thing demonstrators can have at a demonstration is the cell phone...to take photos of abuses? So they can not be shown on censored corporate news of which most of the people are watching? We few people who watch alternative news may see it and be outraged and blog about it but the majority of people will not see these things. And even if they do it will be slanted in favor of those who own the media.

Palindromedary ~ Very true--now. However, we are far away from any revolution. There is no incentive. Also, regular TV is going the way of the dinosaur. Soon--very soon--all entertainment and news will be on demand and free. Soon--very soon--commercial media will go the way of the silent movie.

If you want to see the power of independent photojournalist I ask you to google these two names: Rodney King, and Oscar Grant. Short, yet powerful film clips that will live in infamy.

Quote Palindromedary:The US just does not have the man power to quell such a rebellion. Some cities are even way undermanned, with police, because they can't pay them what they want. What are they going to do... destroy all the cities trying to get to the rebels? Turn them to rubble? I don't think the ruling elite owners would like that solution very much. I think they would eventually rather come off their high horse and give a little back rather than have all their buildings blown to bits.

Palindromedary ~ Sure. Sounds great on paper; however, how are you going to motivate such an uprising? You don't! Period. Only the enemy can do that for you. You're only hope is to be there with the camera rolling when they do.

Both these film clips ignited riots all over the country. Two victims of injustice almost motivated the need for the national guard to be called out. Your suggestion as to how to motivate people into the street? I didn't get that? Taking over the country with the blessing of the masses is not the question. The question, is how do you get the blessing of the masses. I say the only effective way of doing that is by letting the powers that be provide that motivation themselves, film it, and let it go viral... Unless, you have a better suggestion?

By the way, destroying all the cities looking for a handful of rebels is exactly what this government has been doing around the world for 4 decades. Unless your head has been buried in the sand for the last 40 years that is really a stupid question. A handful of rebels is not going to cut it. The best they can manage to accomplish is the death of untold innocent civilians along with themselves. Only with the blessing of the masses can this endeavor succeed.

Check out "George Carlin Social Security" on YouTube. The full title when you get there is "George Carlin Education Sucks, Owners of America, Social Security and Mass Media." He tells it in very very plain english.[ Rated R.]

News Flash: We are not just "on the road to oligarchy". We arrived at that destination some time ago.

A recent article reported on the findings of two researchers who empirically tested various theories about the character of our "democracy." Here is what they found -

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Princeton University Northwestern University
mgilens@princeton.edu b-page@northwestern.edu(Excerpts)

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy....

....Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically elite citizens who wield the actual influence....

....What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it....

....Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Ok, DAnnemarc, so you say the most dangerous thing demonstrators can have at a demonstration is the cell phone...to take photos of abuses? So they can not be shown on censored corporate news of which most of the people are watching? We few people who watch alternative news may see it and be outraged and blog about it but the majority of people will not see these things. And even if they do it will be slanted in favor of those who own the media.

And even if all USians see these things...what are they going to do ....vote Democrat next time? I believe that even if 100% of Congress and the President are Democrats the 1% will still get their way. So who are we trying to impress? And what will it buy them? Contrast that with masses of well armed citizens who will greatly outnumber the forces sent against them with presence in all of the major cities.

The US just does not have the man power to quell such a rebellion. Some cities are even way undermanned, with police, because they can't pay them what they want. What are they going to do... destroy all the cities trying to get to the rebels? Turn them to rubble? I don't think the ruling elite owners would like that solution very much. I think they would eventually rather come off their high horse and give a little back rather than have all their buildings blown to bits.

Fighting door to door in big cities is the worst scenario for the ruling elite. What do you think the citizen rebel will do? Stand out in some open field to fight the attacking drones...buttons pushed by some diminutive joystick and button pusher in some other location? And besides, what toll do you think it would have on those who are sent to fight and kill fellow Americans...perhaps doing a lot of "collateral damage" on people's children? Look at the local police in Donetsk, Ukraine and other Eastern Ukraine cities where they have refused to follow the orders of the new US backed Nazi government to "restore order".

The greatest thing the ruling elite fears is a massive armed rebellion...and loss of loyalty in the police and military forces. They could lose everything including being hung vigilante style by angry mobs of people. Look what's happening in the Ukraine! You don't think that could happen here?

2950-10K -- I think left wing commentators avoid the word fascist because when the audience hears that word they think of Hitler and the person using it wants to kill all jews

Also, when you, Loren etc says there is one ruling class, you have shown the 1% that they have accomplished their goal. They want people to think the 2 parties are the same, so why bother to vote. You have earned my list of why I think the Democratic party is very different from the repugs.

In the 13 weeks of the 5 years of the Obama presidency in which the dems had control of the congress they accomplished a lot.

1 Chrysler saved

2 GM Saved

3 AHCA passed (AKA Obamacare); (because of blue dogs like Max Baucus it was not a single player plan; to get Sen Baucus to sign it, Max's county got single payer.)

4 Middle class tax cut

5 Went from losing 750,000 per month to 30 straight months of job gains (in spite of Republican governors cutting 4.5 million jobs)

6 Education spending increased

7 Laws against hate crimes strengthened

8 CHIPS expanded (Children’s Health Insurance Program)

9 Forced through Child Labor Laws

10 consumer protection agency formed

11 Credit card reform

12 Predatory lending to soldiers restricted

13 Troops paid for stop loss time

14 Torture stopped

15 VA spending increased

16 Women allowed to serve on subs

17 Equal pay for women

18 Nuclear arms reduction proposal

19 BP cleanup fund

20 EPA strengthened

21 FDA powers broadened

22 Healthcare for 9-11 responders funded (during Bush Term it was ignored)

23 DADT was repealed

24 Within 24 hours of his inauguration in 2009, he ordered that the financial statistics of the top 400 families should be treated like everyone else's; that is, they should not be a classified government document.

Even when the dems did not have control they demonstrated their support of the 99%.

25 When the congress was adding Part D to Medicare (the prescription drug assist; I think it was in 2004) the democrats tried to pass an amendment to help fund it by a 1% income tax on incomes over 1 million.

26 In 2009-10 when Obama lost his filibuster proof senate, the senate had a record number of filibusters (380 or so); during LBJ's 6 year reign as senate majority leader there was one.

27 The bills that were filibustered would have helped our economy for both the long and short term. My favorites were the card check bill, the Disclose Act, stopping waivers for the Buy American Act of 1936 and the credits for bringing jobs back (no credits for tearing down factories to send jobs overseas.

28 Republicans supported the Reinhart-Rogoff Study used to push austerity throughout the world; The study was a total scam supported by Pete Peterson who wants all the social security money invested on wall street. It was easy to suck in democrats and the general public because too much debt being a bad thing makes intuitive sense.

AIW, Kend -- I think you are both wrong. The choice we made is between tax cut for the billionaires and our infrastructure.

Craig Bush: I certainly agree! They've got most people right where they want them, playing the same old rigged games...feeding them hope where there is none. Where other countries have wised up against their plutocrats and oligarchs and overthrew them...the people of the US still don't have a clue. Perhaps they haven't quite suffered enough...but it's coming! Just wait till grocery prices, as expensive as they are now, double or triple. Same with gas prices. It won't even make sense to drive to work because cost of commuting will eat up any savings. And even the cost of bus fare will be out of reach for some.

AIW: True, they do have bigger weapons but so did the British against our forefathers.

Mark: I certainly don't think that the non-violent protesters are without a certain amount of bravery. But they all wouldn't be there if they thought that they would be shot. They all have a reasonable belief that since they are unarmed and non-violent that they won't be harmed. That's not as brave as someone who shows up armed. An armed resister would very well know that he could be shot. Kent State showed that even non-violent protesters might be shot. If all those protesters had had weapons...I doubt that the Ohio national guard, being greatly outnumbered and out weaponized, would have had the cajones to start firing into the crowds. It would have been suicide for them. And as most of our troops were in Vietnam at the time, I think the government would have had to back down.

And, yes, the Black Panthers scared the bejesus out of those in power at the time. Just goes to show that "they" won't take anyone seriously until the population is heavily armed. They won't respect you, or fear you, until the people can show that they won't be pushed around by a few ruling elite.

DAM: So, then why didn't the government fire on those 100 protesters in Nevada. Why did the feds back down? And why has the government let those Tea Party people carry weapons to various Tea Party demonstrations? They all got away with it, didn't they! But, I wonder if they were all leftist demonstrators, would they have been fired upon by the authorities? Well, of course, leftist, pacifists, gun haters wouldn't have guns anyway...and still the authorities shoot them (eg: Kent State). That's because the authorities with the guns know they will not likely get return fire from the demonstrators. Real brave men, aren't they? They weren't so brave when those 100 Nevada demonstrators showed up with all those guns. If those Nevada demonstrators, even if it was a group of 1000 or 5000 demonstrators, without guns...those BLM hotshots would have bashed heads or used tear gas or maybe even shot into the crowds.