This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Evil Empire 2? Republicans' Secret Plan To Capitalize On Fear Of US Conversion To Socialism
A previously secret Republican presentation obtained by Politico indicates that the Republicans intend on capitalizing from their current predicament in which they "do not have the White House, the House or the Senate" by pursuing a pitch of "saving the country from trending toward socialism." At least communism is so 1950s. We wonder just how far the political mudslinging campaigns will reach in the coming months as we head into mid-term elections, which are not looking good for Obama, courtesy of an economy in shambles which appears good only on Beige paper (when it is not snowing). Of course, any additional forays into "socialism" as defined by the RNC will likely be capitalized upon to build a stronger electorate as the Obama administration is now caught in the stranglehold of having loudly proposed the Volcker rule, but now seems very much powerless when it comes to enforcing it (Greece?).
The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.
In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.
As to the source of the document.
The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a
hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat,
the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the
presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman,
Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President
George W. Bush.
And this pearl:
One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.
As expected, and roughly in line with this country's deplorable financial collapse, politics in America has now succumbed to new and unexpected farcical lows. It will be amazing if an independent party is unable to generate sufficient popular interest to finally challenge the bipolar system, after the destruction following both republican and democrat rule.
Full presentation:
»
- 7853 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Vote: None of the above
I second that sentiment.
The modern GOP is often corrupt and morally bankrupt, and shares nothing with the principles that many describe to it. It is not our father's Republican party, that's for sure.
But the Democratic party isn't any better. Look at the complete and total capitulation on everything Obama was elected on. Hope? Change? Apparently the answer is: fuck that, but thanks for your vote.
Try to come up with another modern democracy that only has two parties. It's not easy to do. The U.K., Sweden, Germany, Canada, . . . the list goes on and on. They all have, at the very least, a smaller "major" party that prevents what we're seeing in America:
Namely, America is a country where we're lead to believe the steering wheel of progress has two hands, one pulling hard to the right, and the other hard to the left. And this somehow is good, even though we're heading for a fucking cliff, and it would be better to go to one side or the other.
In reality, we're heading for the cliff, and the GOP has only a little bit of pull on that steering wheel, yet the Democratic party is more than happy to pull just enough to the left to keep us moving nice and center -- stay the course --
Right off the fucking cliff.
America needs a third, fourth, and fifth party. Fuck this duopoly shit. It's absolute crap.
Under the current system a "none of the above" ballot gets counted as a vote, but not cast for a candidate. If a candidate fails to garner a majority there will be a run off election. No one gets seated, no business gets done. No business is far better than what we have now which is the big lie backed up by a super constitutional monarchy used by both major political parties to rule under the auspices of an executive order declaring a national emergency.
methinks you're onto somethin miles.
fyi, the haitians did something similar in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_general_election,_2006
but YMMV
This is why it's time to elect a dead president! Now hear me out. Lets say we re-elect JFK and seat his corpse in the Oval Office. So because he can't sign anything it's a pocket veto for everything. No cabinet appointments, pure gridlock. It would be awesome, would be the best president ever!
Indeed. The question then becomes which dead president to elect given the current state of the American electorate? I suspect that in reaching for a dead president we would be confronted with many of the same issues that we are at present. Unless, of course, America decides upon using James Buchanan as the vehicle to send the message. After all, even the worst president in history is still far better than the option(s) currently available.
Besides, imagine a congress with less than 218 duly elected members and a senate with less than 50 .... Or a county council, state house, municipality and every other level of government similarly constrained....
don't blame me, i voted for Zappa
Don't you go where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow... Zappa
I can't see! Oh wooow is me. I can't see.
LOL! One of the best!
Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson Davis ;-)
Zappa a la Crappa
...take a drive to Beverly Hills...just before dawn...and knock the little jockies off the rich people's lawns...and before they get up I'll be gone...I'll be gone.
Before this is over there will be more than lawn jockies down.
P.S. Voted for Uncle Frank in '92...the best ballot I ever cast.
Hunter S. Thompson
"zombie nixon in 2012"
is still better than Sarah Palin.
Or just Nixon's head. It's been done before, in the future(ama):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Head_in_the_Polls
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo"
That's inappropriate. VP Biden for Scooby Doo.
Sorry but unless Congress adjourns, anything that the president doesn't veto in 10 days (excluding Sundays) becomes law.
From Wikipedia:
The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:
"… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "
If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed."
Good catch. I totally spaced the adjourning part. The funny thing, I got an A in Constitutional law in law school, tells you how much we learn :)
And forget... Hence my message to all levels of government. It would become a matter of legitimacy brought to the fore which would be the real aim. The process of a "no confidence vote" brought by the electorate.
What do ya mean "we"? ;)
I'm a lawyer too. That's probably why I caught the mistake.
Clearly you were more diligent at school then I sir! But then after the 1st year I got soured on the idea of practicing. God knows the legal market is full right now anyway. Though in my defense never read a case on the issue to be honest, and still a student here. So it's just what's jumbled in my head off what I remember form the document itself and off the top of my head, so totally unprofessional.
Sir???? Not only is your assumption incorrect, I can't see any reasonable basis for making that assumption. Wow! Just wow!
Good luck to you. I didn't like law school much but did like practicing.
I wouldn't worry about your pocket veto mistake. You were commenting on a blog, not filing a brief or sending documents out to be signed. We all make mistakes sometimes. And I don't think you need to be professional here. I hope not, anyway!
bravo, lady law, bravo.
The "sir" is meant as term of respect since you did catch me in a big error and quite frankly a throwback to "There are no girls on the Internet! Only fat guys pretending to be girls!" So I will freely admit I assume most people online are men, it's a stereotype that I have and I think a fair number of people do. It's not a judge of inteleigence, I think the top 5 of the 3L class at my school are all women, and all of them way smarter then me. So no offense was meant, just me showing my male stereotypes on my sleeve.
Thanks. I made my decision to not try to find legal work largely on the market. I'm at a good T1 school and I see to many of my classmates with good grades coming up empty. I have other skills to fall back on that pay well in this economy so going to use them. It also lifts a weight off my shoulders about not having to worry about hustling for a legal job. And it's not like I'm taking a pay cut where I'm at. I make pretty good money and have friends who are trying to recruit me out of state for more money. I'd probably even go but I'm going to get the degree, my mom is pretty insistent.
Bitch
Who cares if there are not 218 members of the house to make a quorum to vote on legislation? Besides, what kind of legitimacy would the actions of such a government have?
At least it would stop the rapid and rabid descent.
VOTE President of the States of America, Andrew Jackson, Tennessee.
That darn Constitution will get in the way of your plan. It's only a pocket veto if Congress is adjourned. If they are in session, the failure of the president to sign a bill results in it becoming law. In any case, if the president dies you just go to the vice president. So you'd need to elect a dead one of those too (How about... Spiro Agnew?). Ah, but then you'd go to the Speaker of the House, and on and on. For your plan to work, you'd need to elect a dead person to every seat in the house and senate too. Hmmm, this plan is starting to sound good.
But if they're dead and you put their carcasses in their seats then CONgress never adjourns.
That's a problem.
Second problem. Lobbyists would be replaced with spirit mediums. How are you going to fight that?
3rd, these guys will need rehydrating from time to time. Who appoints a CONgressional Embalmer so that the Hill doesn't stink any worse than it presently does?
"That government is best which governs least"
-Henry David Thoreau
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. - Frederic Bastiat
Your my hero.
At first, in the absence of quote marks, I thought you were writing this, MK (at 252988 the quote of Frederic Bastiat). It's stupifying how that quote resonates with today in America, just stupifying! Granted, the style is different from yours, but the message is perfectly in accord with today in America, except perhaps the part about false philanthropy, but by that point I saw that it was an historical quote.
In America, if there is justice, it's an accident. One could argue that only deep pockets receive justice, but that amounts to justice denied to the non-rich and is therefore not justice at all. But in general, American law only respects deep pockets. Part of this is due to the extremely high cost of competent lawyers. The poor--the bottom 99%--are just screwed from the inception.
At first, in the absence of quote marks, I thought you were writing this, MK (at 252988 the quote of Frederic Bastiat). It's stupifying how that quote resonates with today in America, just stupifying! Granted, the style is different from yours, but the message is perfectly in accord with today in America, except perhaps the part about false philanthropy, but by that point I saw that it was an historical quote.
In America, if there is justice, it's an accident. One could argue that only deep pockets receive justice, but that amounts to justice denied to the non-rich and is therefore not justice at all. But in general, American law only respects deep pockets. Part of this is due to the extremely high cost of competent lawyers. The poor--the bottom 99%--are just screwed from the inception.
Do you have a cite for that? I think that varies from state to state.
I know that in CA in 2000, the voters rejected Prop 23 which would have allowed voters to vote for "none of the above" in many elections (including Congressional and presidential elections), tallied the votes for "none of the above" but not counted them for purposes of who won the election.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:c6kTuFy1zKcJ:primary2000.sos.c...
List of "none of the above" efforts in various states:
http://nota.org/statebystate.htm
There is a bill in the House now (H.R.4498) that would permit voters to vote for "None of the Above" in elections for Federal office and to require an additional election if "None of the Above" receives the most votes.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4498/show
My idea is not to elect none of the above, but to prevent another candidate from obtaining the required majority of votes cast. If a particular jurisdiction wishes to award the election to a candidate that obtained that victory regardless if they were outvoted by none of the above then the office holder would be dogged by questions of legitimacy as would the law that enabled it.
Another classic Canadian contribution to western civilization.
Ballot box and Jury box don't work anymore - time to reach for the Cartridge box.
Russians actually have this system.
You people need to read some US history. That thing is tame compared with stuff they did 100 years ago. New lows? Not even close. The new lows are demonstrated in the ignorance demonstrated by most of these comments, and the author of the article, if in fact, it wasn't itself politically motivated.
ZH needs to cool it with the politics. Didn't the ivy league teach you that business and politics don't mix? Do your politics after hours.
ZH needs to cool it with the politics. Didn't the ivy league teach you that business and politics don't mix? Do your politics after hours.
We talked about his here, some time ago, likely before you were here. IIRC there was widespread agreement that we'd like very much to get back to the business of business, except that the business climate has been destroyed by...politics, and incredible corruption in the markets has been actively ignored, if not suborned by...politics, and the restoration of conditions conducive to business is being blocked by the big banks using their preferred vehicle....politics.
So it seems we need to concern ourselves with politics, because until the corruption is rooted out, capital will stay in hiding, and the economy won't recover.
And so it is that duty has called us all away from our personal affairs to defend them. Excellent comment SWR.
How the hell can you possibly separate business and politics?
..
OK, what are the little dots? I used to know but I forgot.
Deleted post is what it is.
Useless troll.
Absolutely outstanding post.
The reason we have two parties is because we believe in "bipartisanship". That means the two parties are in agreement as to how best to screw the voters. It's amazing how that term is given a positive spin, as in "the spirit of bipartisanship". I'd rather have them at each others throats.
This would be funny as hell were it not true.
Since so many of the Republican voters can't even correctly define the word "socialism", this strategy might work (most seem to think that the definition of socialism is "whatever scares me and I disagree with"). However, with the rest of the population that has a clue as to what socialism is, this won't catch much traction.
Might I suggest a great read?
The Authoritarians, by Bob Altmeyer. It's a free book online.
BTW. I am an ex-Republican.
I seconded the suggestion. The RWA personality is alive and kickin' in the Land Of The Free.
Land of the free? Bwahahahaha. (I know you're joking).
Just try getting on a plane without having a scope jammed up your crank to see if you're hiding a bomb in your bladder.
They've got everyone scared shitless. Scared enough to forgo all liberties.
Say, did you know that Soviet Russia had a massive capitalist terrorist threat for the entire time of it's existence?
BTW. Altmeyer also mentioned that Soviet Communists were RWAs par excellance.
I do have to say this. Republicans, true dyed-in-the-wool party faithful, are the biggest pussies of them all. They're so scared of Mohammad that they'd throw their own fucking grandmother in Gitmo if she dared have an extended conversation with a Pakistani cabbie.
This is a good example. The book you mentioned is
about totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with economics.
Why does that matter? Because socialism is an economic
system, not a political one.
The book also demonstrates HOW this wicked system not only exists, but propagates. Root cause is every bit as important as functional mechanics.
Vote: None of the above.
Sure that's OK. But for our own safety "Vote: For the party currently out of power".
Tie up the gov in knots till we have a better plan.
Ruh Roh!
(those waskally webpublicans!)
ZZZZZZ.....This Democrat vs. Republican nonsense bores me. Just one big ruse to make the American populace believe they have a choice. The truth is that they don't have one and that they are ruled by the money printers and bankers.
just so.
I considered the Bunning incident an attempt to make the Democrats look good so they can pass the healthcare tax.
It is a sad testament that the most cynical interpretation is usually the correct one.
Hat tip to you and Roy.
2nd hat tip.
Quick men, another distraction! More partisan debate. Don't let 'em see we both scam the Treasury! Can't loose the golden goose, eh? Much to yell about to repair Lloyd's indiscretions. Make it sound like we're really for the little guy this time!
Gotta say, folks here have been both ripe and ripened for it for a long time . . .
I'd wonder if they got the idea here, if I didn't know that this moronically perverse understanding of "socialism" has been in play so long.
May Corporate Fascism prevail! And God Bless America.
Was there a point to this column?
They're all bitches of CFR,triLat and Bilderberg. Except Ron Paul
Paul is the only Constitutionalist. The rest are dick-tators.
There is only one party in the US: The Ruling Party. I would say, given the fact that Robert Gates, Secretary of the Defense, got retained, speaks volumes about the Shadow Govt that truly runs this country. And they are in the business of war and geopolitical domination. Healthcare is simply kabuki theater. War is the course du jour!
Both the left and the right are traitors to the people. They serve the bankers and their Bilderberger masters.
Rep and Dems needs war because if you look at what companies they have invested serious money into, it is those same companies that profit from war and no-bid contracts.
Replubs lack originality and creativeness. Obama as "joker" has been used for a year now. They better run Paul, or else a third party will run up on 'em.
john & jenny paulson hosting mitt romney dinner april 13. wish i had $30,400 kicking around for that one
How much more does Paulson think he can get out of Mitt? Do these pigs even stop to chew what they have in their cheeks before they go looking for more?
The only difference a Romney administration would provide would be fee generation as opposed to interest income as the nation would be sold off to private equity rather than simply mortgaged off to the major investment bankers via the federal reserve.
An inconvenient truth ...
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.
and the 'I Can't Believe it's Not Capitalism Plan'.....
http://anonymousmonetarist.blogspot.com/2009/09/strategerizin-at-office-i-cant-beleive.html
Two versions of a major prime-time address that may or may not be given hours from now? Sure, no problem. Ultimately, Ed decided to go with the second speech. But he clearly didn’t share his plan with the president. When the president came into the Family Theater to rehearse the speech in front of a teleprompter, he didn’t like the idea of just talking about principles. It sounded like the administration was backing away from its own plan (which it was).
“We can’t even defend our own proposal?” the president asked. “Why did we propose it, then?” This was not bold decision making. There were about a dozen people gathered in the theater to watch him rehearse, and all of us remained silent as the president looked at us for an answer.
The president walked over to sip some water from one of the bottles on the table near his lectern. “This speech is weak,” he said. He looked at me and Chris. “Frankly, I’m surprised, to be honest with you.”
There was more silence.
“Too late to cancel the speech?” the president asked into the air. He was joking…I think. Finally, Ed (who hadn’t exactly rushed to jump into the line of fire) explained that we had to make this change to the address because the proposal the president liked might not end up being the one he had to agree to. “Then why the hell did I support it if I didn’t believe it would pass?” he snapped. There was yet another uncomfortable silence.
It's good to know that even Bush himself wasn't as dumb as he seemed. Unfortunately, the intelligence directing the operation seems to have been way over his head . . . or not keeping him in the loop.
I thought that the article was entirely consistent with Bush being a feeble-minded minion of Lucifer. Look at all the situations depicted where the man was utterly clueless.
+1
Good for the RNC! This is not scare-mongering, this real.
Look no further than the Obama administration garnishing wages to pay
UAW workers more money for the same work:
"The part that is bizarre is last November's decision by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to grant NUMMI employees access to Trade Adjustment Assistance. This assistance is designed to blunt the impact of foreign competition on American workers. Solis apparently forgot that NUMMI is a joint venture with General Motors and Toyota (well until GM quit the JV a few months ago...), and as far as I know General Motors is not a foreign company.
Part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance is $12,000 over two years for the Re-employment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA). This adjustment gives employees extra money to compensate for their new smaller salary at their new job. If you made $80,000 at your previous UAW job and now make $50,000, you can get up to $6,000 per year to reduce the impact of the lower salary. The effect is that at your new job, the person next to you doing the exact same thing will make less money than you, but a portion of their taxes will go directly to subsidize your higher salary." http://www.thealphaninja.com/2010/03/toyota-pays-final-sad-bribe-to-united.htmlGiant Douche or Turd Sandwich
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=428...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103888
What a lame powerpoint. Crafted by the characters of the movie Idiocracy.
"Fear of US Conversion to Socialism"? Obama and the Dems are doing a pretty good conversion act. It would be hard to prove otherwise.
How many times do I have to tell you, that's not a cow, it's a steer!
How do you know that? google Texas Longhorn cow
And Cow, I believe thats a African Watusi breed.
Glenlloyd, till you check between it's legs it could be either one. Unless it's a Tranny.
we need to bring balance back to The Force
let The Republicans do their thing. The Reagan years were far better this Obamanation of Corruption.
Goldwater
Too bad all of the republicans have been driven from the republican party.
+1
It's all just a big reality TV show now.
We already have socialism. What we're moving rapidly toward now is Marxism.
Obviously you didn't go to class that day in poli sci 101.
When I see Jamie Dimon's and Lloyd Blankfein's after tax salaries at $55K per year, then we will have marxism, or even socialism.
Until then, it's a plutocratic kleptocracy.
"Socialism has been discredited. Plutocracy is in the process of being discredited. Democratic capitalism has yet to be tried."
(Louis O. Kelso and Patricia Hetter Kelso, Democracy and Economic Power, 1991)
http://www.kelsoinstitute.org/quotes.html
If you want to call it an "-ism," I'd suggest "Fascism." Too bad the word's been debased by teenagers' flinging it at fast-food shift managers and high-school principals, because it's the best word I know to describe this sorry mess.
Look up a good, serious definition. The key part that applies is Mussolini's concept of the merger of the corporate sector with the State.
Socialists, Marxists, Leftists of any stripe really; none of them would put up with GS, or the GM executive team or any of a number of other egregious examples. They have their own delights to bestow, I'm sure. But any of these jokers would have been right at home in Mussolini's construct.
that presentation was a snoozer.... I just don't think they understand that this is not a republican vs. democrat issue. This is a system that's morphed into something that no longer serves the good of the populace...that is unless you're one of those who can buy it.
People aren't happy with either party, they want an alternative, they want someone who will act on their behalf and not on the behalf of a financial system that saddles us with more taxes. If you're propping up a system to continue the appearance of prosperity or success but on the backside your saddling the citizenry with the cost for doing so then in the end what's the point, all your doing is taking money from those who need it the most and giving it to deadbeat bankers who don't need it.
I really don't think I want a republican or a democrat...give me some other options.
Couldn't agree more about the insipid PowerPoint. That software may not bring the end of civilization as we know it, but it may make the idea more attractive.
Seriously though, I think they may very well understand what you're saying, and you answered your own question: "...that is unless you're one of those who can buy it."
That's all they want to do; to win in this 2-party zero-sum game they like to play. That's it. They have no intention or desire to do anything else but win this game.
Fascism is also socialism.
The only way out is for Ron Paul, and those who think like he does to take control of the Republican party, or else form a third party.
If they fail, Revolution will be the only answer to our problems.
There is no way that Ron Paul will ever be elected. I know he has many fans, but his belief in conspiracy theories and his newsletters full of racist nonsense make him an unpalatable candidate for the majority of Americans. You will have to find someone else.
Sad but true. At the same time, however, the coming election (assuming it occurs) threatens to be a stampede of additional parties. Split in many directions. Paul will, of course, be one. Palin another. It's gonna be open season in American politics. Assuming we still have elections, of course.
If one were to agree with a troll does that make one also a troll?
? I don't think so. What do the rules say? Seems to me one degree of separation is sufficient, depending upon what one has to say and whether it's clearly driven by a dogmatic agenda or not.
The only conspiracies fostered on the American public are those put out by those who have overthrown our government, denying and deferring their actions even while heaps of evidence prove otherwise.
I believe you are correct about Ron Paul
It's time to bring out someone who can fix this thing, actually lift up the hood and get
to work, it time for....Ross Perot!
Seriously though, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.
It is getting time for a third party. The republicans should win big in the upcoming November midterms.If they don't get their act
together after November, I believe the american people will be ready for a third party. But this democrat bad, republican good,
democrat good, republican bad horseshit is
getting old. I don't understand how anyone can
carry water for either party anymore....
A third party would be a revolution.
Oh, I was going to say that. Bravo.
Both parties are just different signs of the same coin. Not a bit of real difference between them. I'm at the point now where I would gladly take a random group of people, at least they would not be totally bought and paid for, they would just be just pursing their own agenda!
Both parties are worthless scum, Ron Paul excluded of course.
This is a total non-event. It did not show disdain for donors. Wht, because it mentioned tschotchkes?
I'm no apologist for the GOP, all but a handful are sell-outs, wimps, or weasels. But this powerpoint was totally misrepresented by Politico
Politico misrepresenting Republicans? SHOCKER!!
Political parties capitalize on each other's real and imagined failings. That's as shocking as the sun rising in the east every single morning!
I think the page "Motivation to Give" shows disdain for donors. E.g., the description of using fear, manipulating the potential donors' "extreme negative feelings toward existing administration" to get them to cough up $$$$ for the RNC, the description of the donors' motivation as reactionary. Ditto for the major donors where using "peer pressure" to motivate giving and describing that giving as "ego-driven" and desire for access (i.e., payola). I don't think those descriptions are flattering.
I doubt that an honest description by the Dems would be any better. I think both parties think of the population as rubes who can be manipulated fairly easily. I think the "Motivation to Give" slide is pretty clear about that.
Let's just have done with the illusion, shall we?
Bernanke Blankfein 2012!
Not a big fan of Republicans, but it's pretty easy getting people on your side when you're pointing out the truth - sort of. Our economy is moving toward fascism rather than socialism.
Given the unavoidable fact that the political class is ripping up the constitution and that their incentive is to rob me of my liberty in order to increase their political power (which they, of course, monetize), I'm in favour of gridlock.
That means I'll be working to get more Republicans in congress this coming election cycle.
I like Ron Paul except his absolutely inane, clueless and elitist approach to foreign policy. If nobody will hurt us if we just left everyone alone, there would be no serial killers, rapists and pedophiles.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is the most sane part of his platform. Our foreign policy issues are 99% of our own making.
Even the monster "Iran" is of our own making. Google Operation Ajax. You'd be royally pissed off at any nation that pulled that shit on the United States.
It's called "blowback". Most of the bad guys are the direct result of a foreign policy predicated on plundering weaker nations, either by bullying, aggression, or meddling, like political destabilization.
I'll tell you this. Foreigners don't hate America because of our freedoms (really don't laugh). They hate us because "we're over there".
I read that craptastic presentation and drew one conclusion: the RNC doesn't have ideas that can win votes, so they depend on money - Blankfein sums of money - to surgically manage their slogan/message and gain power.
While I don't have the DNC's presentation handy to critique, I have no doubt I would draw the exact same conclusion -- it's all about money, it's not about solutions or purpose.
This isn't the United States. We have no unifying forces working in the public's interest. The two parties have worked savagely to divide the country into "us" and "them." I resent them for it. The country deserves to fail when the very principles it was founded on are no longer respected for fostering the common bond that helps us "to form a more perfect union."
The two parties don't get my money, and will no longer get my vote. Voting will now become a form of civic protest. None of the above in '10!!!!!
+1
Welcome to the Weimar Republic, circa 1919.
Tea Baggers! Sarah Palin for teh win!!1 Rah rah.
And then the rest is just ... history, bitches!
The reason Ron Paul will never win is because he lacks a personality Madison Ave can sell. Ever since the days of tv debates, it's always been the candidate who has the best personality, wins. Ideas are not sound bites. Yet, it's soundbites, slogans, posters, that the electorate gravitates.
The TV age is over. Hail the Web age!
I thought in socialism the workers control the means of production?
Nope, in socialism the party and union leaders control the means of production...
"One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively."
That is funny.
Politics is politics. I'd rather try and find more concervative candidates in the Republican party than waste my time on a Democrat. Hell half the Tea Party crowd are disgruntled Republicans that are now listening to their libertarian freinds. "Neo-Cons do exist!" If Republicans, like myself end up with pro-business, big government types as candidates instead of pro-free market, small government conservatives then it is our own d@mn fault. And I'd have to apologize to my fellow Americans.
Hey is Tyler Durden suggesting that Democrats aren't trying to transform America into a European social democrac?
GOP is messed up, gutless and lacks direction and principle.
But the suggestion we are trending toward Socialism is not way off base. Certainly not trending away from Socialism.
We are trending towards fascism, not socialism.
Under Fascism, Man exploits Man.
Under Socialism, it's the other way around.
Sorry, I couldn't resist the old joke. You're correct, by the way.
Either way you eventually run out of other people's money.
Republican = Dinosaur
Sometimes even those that don't believe in evolution get done in by it.
heh
Someone needs to stop the socialists... At this point, I don't really care who.
So bring on the fascists! Obama wasn't the first dubious leader to get elected with vague promises of "hope" and "change," and he probably won't be the last.
Ah, finally some good old McCarthyism. Let's hit each other in the head with labels we don't really understand, shall we?
Can someone bring the popcorn?
I second that. I keep reading "socialism" but not one post here has even properly defined the term.
The term that best describes the situation at hand was once perfectly described by Benito Mussolini as "the merger of corporation and state".
So, in reference to labels in general. What difference does it make if power and wealth are consolidated in a political elite vs power and wealth consolidated in a financial elite?
This is what really makes me laugh at Republicans and Democrats (and smack them at the same time, idiots). They think they are diametric opposites. And since one is "bad", then the other must be "good".
someone needs to stop the criminals, I don't care if they're communist, socialist, or fascist, they need to be held accountable.
Indeed. We get too caught up in labels. And the doupoly of good vs bad, white hats vs black hats.
And that's where the asshats (republicans and democrats) get confused. They fail to realize that their is no good guy in this epic battle of the equivalent of the Gambinos and Genoveses.
"Someone" is the same as "no one".
Why not you?
"Somebody call 9-1-1!" (everyone just stands there figuring someone else will do it)
I'm really hoping the Repubs get elected and then do away with all that Socialist Medicare and Socialist Security. And then they can get rid of Socialist public education and Socialist oil subsidies while they are at it. And who needs the FDIC? Socialism! Let stupid people who cannot invest go broke and die.
Let the weak and the old and the poor die and the God-fearing rich prevail. That's what I want to see. It's all God's will in the end, doing God's work. God save the Republicans and the hard-working wealthy people of this great country, and God save America.
[Tell. Big. Lies.]
Only the bankers' profits have not been socialized. Just about everything else has been socialized. HUD TARP NAFTA ATFWDC IHCC FNM, guaranteed state workers pensions, modification of upside down loans at taxpayer expense, cash for clunkers, cash for caulking, you name it and it's socialized. Spread the wealth, Obama announced his plan while he was running. One servant class with plutocratic fascist leaders. Or as J. Sinclair wryly states, authoritarian free enterprise.
Check out slide 10:
"In 2009, the RNC raised a total of $81,255,000 million."
That's $81.225 trillion. Is someone at the FED working for the RNC?
Reading the headline, I thought maybe the Dems were going Machiavelli on the Repubs. Perhaps a plant or set up. After going through the powerpoint, my reaction: Yaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn...
Sure, both parties stand in the way of our individual enjoyment of our property and livelihood. But the Dems are driving a funny-car pedal to the metal toward styfling Big government control. The Repubs are my 50 foot high speed bump!
SOCIALISM:
Investment in infrastructure, education, health care, the arts, science, technology, etc.
NOT SOCIALISM:
Burning trillions of dollars in Iraq, bailing out failed banks and shitty hoopty car companies, earmarks for large political donors, handouts to religious wackjobs, foreign aid to allies (and enemies), etc.
Seems like we should define socialism as "taxation and wealth redistribution with the potential for positive social consequences or return on investment." Taxation and wealth destruction on the other hand is good old red blooded Americanism!
SOCIALISM: Killing your own people
NOT SOCIALISM: Killing other people
as well as your own people
Oh our buddy Alex Jones is gonna have a field day with the Obama Joker poster in this one. And the fear of socialism - its real not fake. Hell we're on small step from fascism the way I see it.
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck... :-)
The document was created, or probably just extensively modified, by the Democrats, IMO.
The .pdf was created at 8:45pm last night and modified at 2:00pm today, for an event that occurred February 18th. The only significant security restriction is document assembly, meaning the "finder" could have added re-written pages.
The RNC should disown this document and sue Politico for defamation.
Will he? He won't.
When Republicans start opposing the current communist (read: free) distribution of environmental goods, such as clean air and climate change, then I'll take them seriously. And when they oppose big government when it comes to national defense, the PATRIOT act, abortion, gay marriage, war, the death penalty, the teaching of evolution, free speech, criminal law, family medical decisions, and corn & oil subsidies, then they won't be f*cking hypocrites. But that's never gonna happen.
Bravo.