It's a two-party system. Republican or Democrat the USA is fucked for the next decade no matter what because Bush-Cheney stole every cent they could.

If you're really into being apathetic, consider the number of years we have before THE nuclear war. Fifty? A hundred? Two Hundred? Yeah.

Polls?
 

It appears that there is a poll and post for every taste.
Obama polls vs Palin polls opinions not to waste
evidence here and evidence there bad guys everywhere
what shall we do and where shall we go
keep looking keep searching somebody will know
the answers my friend are they blowing in the wind
the winds will be strong and we will be long gone

It's a multiple party system. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to vote for Ron Paul. Dems and Repubs just happen to dominate the political scene.

I'm not apathetic; I just generally tend to hate most everyone with the exception of trannies and their cohorts who enjoy their company.

Ron Paul? You waited in line to vote for Ron Paul? Polls? I hang up when a pollster calls. Obama is perfect. Obama is God. When will you morons aknowledge this? I'll tell you when. NEVER!

Wow... you'll probably love this then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq4c2lFMmmU

And this photo definitely confirms that Obama is God!

reps or dems, it doesnt matter
 

anyone who says that obama is a much different choice then mcain should understand this very important fact. the same people contibuted campaign contributions to both parties.
so even though they are two different parties, youre still getting the same person for the job. its been this way for years. gm, exxon, bank of america and citi group own this country.
and until we demolish the party system, and stop putting buisness men and lawyers in political positions and start putting actual represenatives of the majorities views and opionions, and continually educate the masses to properly make educated decisions and not propoganda indused ones, america will still belong to the wealthy one percent.
and we will continue to work to pay off the debt that we incure by bying things we cant afford, and our government forces on us by borrowing more money(debt) from the federal reseve.

You got it right.
The founding fathers were very concerned about news and a well informed electorate. In fact in the early days, the government subsidized the newspaper industry believing it essential to provide the public with information to make intelligent voting decisions. No restrictions were placed on the opinions expressed in the press, however.
Now, we have Fox news spewing conservative BS day in and day out along with Russ and other opportunists playing to the ignorance of a poorly informed public. Why? because it makes money for the media. PBS and Bill Moyers provide some honest news and the BBC also is good. Most of the US media is crap particularly TV media. The popularity of Sarah Palin testifies to the ignorance and anti intellectual bent of the public. The "news" is just another form of entertainment for a brain dead public. :censored:

Damn near every media outlet has it's own political bias, not just Fox news. Even good ol' PBS and BBC...

The Obama machine and the Bush machine have taken all that stuff into consideration, believe me, and it's all accounted for. In a country that is supposed to be based on the Freedom of the American voter, nowhere in the world has the Art of Manipulating the Consumer flourished more than right here, and if Massachusetts votes with it's ass instead of it's head tonight, not only will Teddy be spinning in his grave, so will Washington, Jefferson, and every freethinking American who loves or tolerates the sexual liberties the Republicans and Conservatives want to destroy.

Bias toward the public good sounds good to me. That what a Democracy is supposed to be about, the public good.
Not the rich, or the conservatives, or the liberals, or the ultra religious, or the atheists, just whats good for the country and the people living in it.

A democracy is about the whims and wants at a particularly given point of a society and is never usually long-lived. A republic is about justice and law previously agreed upon for the benefit of the society, both present and future. But I digress...

All these media outlets have some sort of political bias whether or not you would like to acknowledge it or not. Just because it is subtle and not blatantly obvious does not mean that it is not present. And most don't care about the "public good" or any such thing. Long gone are the days of objective reporting.

I just came all over myself. HAHAHA I knew 2010 was going to be a good year :coupling: One down, 36 more to go this year.

With Massachusetts being one of the bluest states with democrats outnumbering republicans 3 to one, it makes you progressives here wonder just how far left you are doesn't it?

A lot of Dem's started vomitting last night. I understand everything came up Brown.:lol:

Yes, the Democrats and Obama fucked up big time. They had an opportunity to reform the government and clean up the mess left by years of Republican malfeasance. Now we can watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the country descends into third world status.

I guess the worms always win in the end.

Squandered opportunity
 

From Drew Westen, Huffington Post



Probably too late. :frown:

Shall we start keeping track of every state that goes from BLUE to RED and relabel them BROWN?

Just watched Pelosi talking---she looks like she is having a nervous breakdown.

And OBAMA the idiot--says Mass went for Brown because they are still pissed at Bush---that just proves he is an idiot.

At this point I don't see why you kept reading. Because how many more times did BO overspend than Bush's 8 years after only one month? All together kids... 2.5 times more. So obviously the writer is clueless. If I were you I wouldn't associate myself with the clueless. It doesn't look good ;)

LOL I would have given anything to spend the day with ol Nancy today :lol:

LOL well you know if they paid any attention to reality they wouldn't have done %90 of the stuff they did over the last year.

Wake Up Randolph
 

Idiot Obama says Brown's winning shows that people of Mass are still pissed about Bushes reign for the last eight years. He is so delusional. And you idolize him?????

Hey? Where do you come up with I idolize him? Originally, I felt we had an opportunity to improve Washington. As time went on it became increasing obvious that Obama and Congress were not working for the American people but for the bankers and corporate interests. I am disillusioned with Obama and Congress. Washington is dysfunctional. The vote in Massachusetts reveals the frustration of all of us.
On that note does anybody seriously believe the Republicans can do any better?

[QUOTE=randolph;128805]Unfotuneately we have a choice between the two parties ONLY. What we need to do is get new people in there--run them 2 terms max and kick em out. The is what the original fathers said to do and it is the best.

Vote independent.

If you have a Democrat, a Republican and an Independant running and you vote for the independant you really have jsut given your vote to the Dems.
I will repeat A VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDANT IS A VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT it happens every single time.

Wait, wait, wait! Who do you think elected Brown?
It was the INDEPENDENTS!

Yes. Even the RINOs will not overspend by $3 trillion per year. They will not spend millions to give our rights to terrorists. They will not punish those who are trying to protect America. They will not attempt to steal 1/6 of the American economy without the acceptance of the American people. They do not support criminal groups like ACORN. They do not associate themselves with communists and other groups who want to start a revolution in America. They would not try and move the US census to the Executive Branch. They realize people who are able should work for a living.

There are some of them who think man lived with the dinosaurs, but that's a small price to pay. And BOTH sides have a severe problem when it comes to illegal aliens but again, the republicans are not quite as bad as the democrats who would eventually insist that we pay for the health care of the millions of illegal aliens that are here.

[QUOTE=CCC;128808]Yes, unfortunately it must be two parties. Otherwise the vote would be split. BUT... what we can do is what the progressives have done. They hijacked the democrats party. If they can do that, then conservatives can retake the republican party.

No, what CCC is saying is don't vote for an independent, not the other way around. Brown ran as a republican.

The Republicans achieved NOTHING in their 8 year term. NOTHING!!! Can you believe that shit?

This is a ridiculous statement.

Are you kidding!
Lets see now;
Clinton left them a healthy surplus which was promptly turned into a deficit.
They gave a huge tax break to the rich.
Passed a huge expensive drug bill with no funding.
Went to war in Irak costing billions.
Corrupted all of the regulatory agencies which contributed to the meltdown.
Oh, well the list is endless.:censored:

Gimme a ridiculous answer.

Your purposefully ignorant remark gives me no reason to think you want an answer.

China
 

I just watched an interview on World News discussing why China pulled itself out of recession while we have not. The consensus is that the stimulus funds China poured into its banking system were used to loan money to industry while the taxpayer money we poured into our banking system stayed in the banks. Meanwhile our banks are paying their CEOs huge bonuses. Somebody (Obama) is fucking up bigtime by not clamping down on our banks. The public (including me) is outraged. Now all of a sudden Obama is talking tough, we shall see if anything comes of it. :frown:

Every body back off and let a BLACK MAN throw down!!!!! ACT I scene II -stay tuned!!! I told you that Barack was a baaaaaaaad Mutha (shut my mouth!)

Let's not be racist ok?

What chew talkin' bout, Willis? I'm not Newt Gingrich! I'm Harry Reid!

Where's the nekkid shemales??!!!??

Have the fat cats finally gone too far?



By Alex Brummer
Last updated at 10:39 AM on 22nd January 2010
Hard to imagine, isn't it, that just 15 months ago the chairman of Goldman Sachs was chasing around like a headless chicken trying to save his company from collapse.

In the end Lloyd Blankfein's finance house was saved by a ?6.25billion loan from legendary investor Warren Buffett and a bailout credit from Washington.
There was also a change in status from broker-dealer to bank holding company that allowed Goldman to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...92_468x323.jpg Rescued: Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein

The result of this rescue is that Goldman Sachs has revealed one of the most profitable years in its history, clearing some ?8billion.
This outcome was achieved after the bank set aside ?9.99billion in pay and bonuses, representing an average of ?308,000 for everyone at the bank from Mr Blankfein down to his chauffeur and the security guards in London.



The remarkable aspect of this figure, a 57 per cent rise on the pay and bonuses of the previous year, is that it came after Goldman sought to calm the political storm engulfing its reputation by paying no bonuses at all for the final three months of the year and stepping up its charitable contributions.

It is the first time in Goldman's recent history that it has shown any recognition that the bank is in danger of becoming a political pariah around the world.

But the contrition from the 'Masters of the Universe' has come a little late. The global investment banks now face the double whammy of super-taxes and regulations which will make it far more difficult to make bonanza profits.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...48_233x406.jpg Getting tough: Mr Obama yesterday

Finally President Obama has recognised that allowing the banks to rampage untrammelled has been a political disaster.

In the U.S. it is seen as a key reason for the shock loss of the former Kennedy Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Mr Obama is recognising that ordinary taxpayers and bank depositors should not be funding risky dealings on the financial markets.

He is asking Congress to reform regulation so that no bank in the U.S. can be involved in high-risk hedge fund, private equity or share and commodity dealings on their own account.

The President's views echo those voiced last year by Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. He suggested it was time to separate casino banking - of the kind described by Mr Obama - from the utility banking of taking deposits and making business and personal loans.

At the same time Mr Obama has recognised that some Wall Street finance houses have become too big and powerful and made it clear that the White House no longer wants to see any more major financial mergers.

The measures he outlined have a striking similarity to Glass-Steagall, the law passed in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, which forced the separation of risk-taking finance from traditional commercial banking.
If Goldman Sachs has hoped to insulate itself and Wall Street from criticism by curtailing its bonus culture in the final months of the year then its concession has come too late.

By setting the bonus bar so high in the first nine months of the year Goldman is privately blamed by the financial services, including Britain's HSBC and Barclays, for the new bonus taxes and fees being imposed by governments around the world.

Alistair Darling led the way with a 50 per cent one-off bonus tax in his Pre-Budget Report last month. This was quickly matched in France by President Sarkozy.

President Obama announced a fee designed to ensure 'every last dime' of the ?430billion bank bailout is repaid to the U.S. Treasury. The movement for super taxes on the banks is gathering momentum with Sweden this week proposing a European-wide tax policy to punish the banks for their extravagant bonuses.

If Mr Obama and Congress succeed with their reforms it could be the end of the multi-billion bonus pots at Goldman, Barclays Capital and others.

In 2009 the big upsurge in income at Goldman and other banks largely came from casino banking and trading - much of it on the bank's own account.

The figures just published show that revenues from this source climbed to ?14billion last year against just ?1billion the year before.
This is precisely the kind of 'casino' trading which Mr Obama wants to ban.

The President's sensational intervention could mean that the door is slammed on the 'fat cat' banking which brought the world to the precipice.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz0dMfcEUur

The Battle lines have been drawn. PEOPLE vs. MONEY. Talk is over, it's ON now, it's war. It will be hilarious to hear Fox and Rush defend the freedom of the Wall St. thieves.

YES THE WAR IS ON----That A-Hole Obama with his idiots now wants to destroy banking because they don't control it like they control your mind. The stock market just dropped 3 days ina row because of his big mouth---you happy?--you friggin liberal idipots don't realize that it's the businesses in this country that pay your wages and pay all the taxes. Remember the bottom half of income earners only pay 3% of the taxes to run this country and 90% or better of them are flaming loser liberals. Does that include you?

Look at taxes by state and general liberal/conservative leanings. Then look at tax burden in these states. You will find the majority of federal tax PAYING states vote liberal, while the most conservative voting states tend to be higher tax RECIPIENTS.

For example - Vermont = liberal = federal tax excess. Okalhoma = conservative = tax burden.

Well the banks have paid back the bailout they took... with interest. Oh well... go get em BO

Hey Genius, where do you think the businesses and banks GET their money? From the LOSERS? The middle class pays for EVERYTHING!!!

I am going to try to play nice here BUT all the businesses and banks get all thier money from everyone---winners and losers---whether they be black, white, pink or purple. The problem is the dang liberal dems need a welfare class to vote to keep them in business--that is why there are more liberals in the cities and especially where there are universities.

Just a thought--could it be as a person gets more successful in the city that they try to escape to the country to get away from the libs??? Just a thought :innocent:

Isn't ironic that the most conservative anti liberal states are the poorest and least educated and require the most government assistance? Of course that is Pat Roberts, Russ Limbaugh, Fox News territory.

The disconnects in the American voter is an odd odd thing. The base of the Conservative movement here is two-pronged. You have the "values voters" and "Free market folks". Ultimately these two will have to sort out their own laundry since "values voters" require welfare, state funding of religion, onerous laws and in short, MASSIVE government.

Free market dudes just want to remove child labor laws, government foreign aid, the Family Medical Leave Act, medical research and education grants.

Sooner or later they will realize they are their own worst enemy. The Free market dudes will eventually hive off, the values crowd will hook up with the Blue Dog Dems (good to see them go), and we can finally have an actual Liberal party as an option.

Population trends say... NO, not really. The most liberal cities tend to have massive housing shortages (even after the housing bust) while suburban and rural housing no such shortages (one could even say surplus given the current market)

That American voters so consistently vote against their real interest is actually not such a mystery. It becomes understandable when one considers the unique "ideology" that is instilled in American children from an early age ... an ideology that is largely unknown in the rest of the world. Specifically, those who control the wealth in this country figured out a long time ago that the so-called "American dream" (e.g., anyone can become rich, anyone can grow up to be president, etc.) was a powerful tool to use in avoiding having to do some of the things that the European welfare states have had to do, specifically have strong social safety nets in essentially capitalist countries. If you hammer into people's heads, at a young age, the notion that it is their own responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, you gradually erode within society the sense of social solidarity that is common to Europeans. It makes it easy to argue against the essential human reality that -- when it comes to living socially and ensuring a good life for all, especially in a wealthy land like the United States -- and injury to one is an injury to all.

I remember once when I was living in Paris for a short while that I would walk by, in my neighborhood, a creche (daycare center) every day on my way to work. There seemed to be about 30 or so children who were taken care of at this particular place. One morning, I walked by and found a large crowd, about 400 people, demonstrating. Many of them had their children with them, and few (obviously) were the parents of the actual children who attended the daycare center. The government had announced a cutback the day before, and the entire neighborhood came out in protest -- even the relatively wealthy people who had children with nannies! I asked some of my neighbors why they were there and they said that it was their civic duty to defend the interests of the people who needed this government-provided assistance. That was it. Simply put and simply true.

American "individualism" is a trick used by those who seek to control the wealth. But it is so deeply ingrained that you can find people voting and acting against their own economic interests and those they share with their neighbors at every turn.

The "wink wink" factor you will never hear any politician talk about is the perception that Republicans are white and Democrats are black. And Republicans want you to keep the money you earn while the Dems want you to "spread it around" to welfare mothers. The perception is your one choice is to hang with the white people, or hang with the black people. While this is partly true, the greater truth is that if you make less than $100,000/yr, you ARE a black person!!!! And unless you are one of the very small percentage of people that strike it rich, the HOUSE will always win, and you lose. The game is fixed. The Republican plan is that every cent a working man earns goes towards "goods and services" ...and, oh yeah, (wink wink) they control all the "goods and services"
A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

JIM:

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?


TAL

Fast Track to scandal
 

From England I fear for Obama. I just hope he isn't given the ' bum's rush ' before he has an opportunity to show what he is capable of. We are still suffering in the U.K. from the aftermath of Flim-Flam endless-promises Tony Blair, but we hope that Obama doesn't end up being coralled down the same reformist route that Clinton did ( and I'm NOT referring to his sex life either ! )

Obama can be a great president given time and luck, that's as I see it.