I formed this party because my party has a Republiklan party embedded in it.

I formed this party because I wanted to create a way for Liberals and Progressives to get legislation enacted by going after the companies that give money to conservatives. I created a legislative party. I do not handle money whatsoever.

I'm not asking you to support the regular Democratic party. I'm asking you to consider the following legislative goals.



Progressives don't have to sit and take the conservative nonsense
from conservatives in the Democratic Party and the RepubliKLAN party.

You influence a lot of people. Read what I have to say and if you like it
tell people about this until we bust the conservative coalition in congress.

We're going to go after the friends of conservative Democrats and Republicans
with a massive consumer boycott of those companies that give money to
conservatives. People did that in South Africa and India and we're going to do it here.


I called these 2 organizations.

Omaha Steaks 800 228 2778

Nebraska Beef Council 800-421-5326

and told a person in both organizations, one a beef seller and the other an
organization that promotes Nebraska beef that

I communicate with thousands of people on the net and that

UNLESS their CEOs get Senator Ben Nelson to get all Anti abortion language
out of the final health care bill they can forget me doing business with them
and also forget about me buying Nebraska bred beef at the Supermarket
which I will make sure that the local Supermarket does not sell.

Spread the word please.

Demand congress fix the Medicare prescription drug benefit

go here http://bit.ly/drug_benefit

Send a message to traitor Joe Lieberman demanding he help enact a
strong single payer public option into law.

http://bit.ly/traitorjoe

also go here too http://bit.ly/public_option

Send this message wide and far. Thank you.

You can see further actions at http://WWW.DEMOCRATZ.ORG

Liberals are just as odious as conservatives. Both factions support capitalism and capitalism is the source of our woes. Working the electoral system at this time is futile, it is lose/lose, does this Administration and Congress not prove so?

There is no fixing, amending, reforming or regulating the current organization of social/economic power, it is entirely controlled by the ruling class, they will not, virtually cannot, let it go, we must take control from them. Rather than propping up this system we ought to tear it down.

We created the following Gold Color Coins: Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Edward Kennedy and George Washington. If you want information on obtaining any one of these Coins then email us at COIN@DEMOCRATZ.ORG with the subject COINS.

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/donkey-burger2.gif




The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System

The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.


Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.


Can Progressives "Take Over" the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to "take over" the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly "taken over" by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid '60's, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.

But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word "progressive" refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight's name -- "class warfare." Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, "By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!" This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly "make all boats rise" over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth -- and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

The Democrats are just a faction of the enemy -- not allies in any sense. They are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. They have betrayed us beyond all possible reconciliation, and are more truly allies of the Republicans than they are "friends" of ours.

It's just a fallacy to believe that the Democrats can somehow be transformed into a political force defending the interests of the broader public. That's not what they are. That they dare posture as the "party of the people" is an insult to our collective intelligence. In reality, they use this tattered & tired popular image to collude with the rightwing, confuse the public, & sell us out at every turn.

This is a party ready for the dustbin of history. The only "help" we should give them is helping them get there. We should focus on laying the groundwork for a party that genuinely represents our interests, not helping to resurrect a disgraced & decaying enemy.


"Taking over", "Reforming" the party is a naive illusion. Both parties are dominated and driven by the interests of huge corporations and plutocrats. Neither gives the slightest hoot about the well-being of the general public -- which, as both of them well know, is utterly defenseless, politically. Both parties regard the public as a lamb to be fleeced on behalf of their (the parties') patrons. This condition is non-negotiable & not subject to alteration by ordinary well-meaning people.

Both parties represent little more than the will of giant oil, banking, media and defense corporations. The only way they differ is in marketing strategies, target populations, rhetorical style, & external fluff.

Together, the 2 parties form a governing structure that responds only to the needs of American capitalism. If you go to the Dem Party "pooh-bahs" and say, "I have some nice ideas for peace, housing, environment, and education," they'll laugh in your face. If you go and say, "I have a $10 million donation for you from Exxon-Mobil, if you just relax a wee little regulation about mileage standards," they will say, "Please come into my office. I believe we can do business."

The point is that both US parties are big-business parties, responsive ONLY to the needs & desires of corporations. The personnel of both parties are tightly linked to lobbyists. Both parties are stuffed to the gills with consultants, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, connections in the MSM, & so on. All together, this forms an institutional structure that is completely unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people.

When you try to sell the feel-good idea of "Let's take over the Dem Party," you're in effect proposing a project that ignores the true nature of the Dem Party. This is too big a thing to overlook. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

But the idea of taking over the Dem Party -- & presumably using it as a force for defending the interests of ordinary people against the depradations of the giant corporations -- is diametrically at odds with the true corporate nature of the Dem Party.

Let's understand the difference between a nice feel-good movie like Mr Smith Goes to Washington, and the far uglier reality of how things actually work in Washington?

Outside of dreams, it's a matter of consultants, corporate donations, favorable mainstream media treatment, approval of career party apparatchiks, and so on.

To wean liberals away from their addiction to Democrats, an immense shift of consciousness is required; this is not yet nearly in place. I think that everyone who does understand the mechanisms that make the Dem Party so pernicious should try to transmit this understanding whenever possible. If you are a writer, a film-maker, someone in a position to spread political ideas, I think this kind of thing should be done. If you simply have friends and family with whom you can exchange ideas, I think discussing the rottenness of Democrats whenever possible is an important activity.

- Richard Mynick
____________________

A Brief History of the Democrats:

Jimmy Carter was a president who claimed that human rights was "the soul of our foreign policy" despite making an agreement with Baby Doc Duvalier to not accept the asylum claims of Haitian refugees. His duplicity, however, was not limited to our hemisphere; Carter also earned his Nobel Prize in Southeast Asia. In Cambodia, Jimmy Carter and his national security aide, Zbigniew Brzezinski made an "untiring effort to find peaceful solutions" by initiating a joint U.S.-Thai operation in 1979 known as Task Force 80 which, for ten years, propped up the notorious Khmer Rouge under the all-purpose banner of anti-Communism. "Small wonder present U.S.-originating stories about the Khmer Rouge end abruptly in 1979," says journalist Alexander Cockburn. Interestingly, just two years earlier, Carter displayed his "respect for human rights" when he explained how the US owed no debt to Vietnam. He justified this belief because the "destruction was mutual."

"Candidates say "vote for me, and I will do so-and-so for you." Few believe them, but more important, a different process is unthinkable: that in their unions, political clubs, and other popular organizations people should formulate their own plans and projects and put forth candidates to represent them. Even more unthinkable is that the general public should have a voice in decisions about investment, production, the character of work, and other basic aspects of life. The minimal conditions for functioning democracy have been removed far beyond thought, a remarkable victory of the doctrinal system."

-- Noam Chomsky


_________________

Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?

How do you propose to take control from them or tear it down?

On a slightly different topic, you can form a company where each of the employees share profits equally. I don't believe anything can stop you from doing that. You can also form nonprofit companies as well. You don't have to form companies as most of them operate now as profit making.

I do not like the poor and middle class getting exploited. I do believe in capitalism. I just see that conservatives don't practice capitalism well.

To some degree capitalism can get seen as like using an automobile. Just because someone doesn't use an automobile well that doesn't mean you stop using them and go back to horse and buggies. I believe that capitalism can help people and that conservatives just don't do capitalism well. That doesn't mean we should throw capitalism out.

I believe in the government helping the poor and the disabled, retired and those who lose their jobs and for helping other less fortunate people.


I support your right to believe as you do and your right to form companies where the structure exists not to make a profit and share money taken in equally.

What political party do you belong to?

I didn't vote for Hillary nor would I vote for her in the future.

I believe through massive boycotts of the funders of conservatives in both parties we can force those companies to get the progressive legislation that we want.

People around the world refused to do business with South Africa until the National Party Fell.

The Indian people refused to buy products from the British and that helped a great deal in throwing the British out.

You do believe in consumer boycotts don't you?

I harbor no illusion that progressives and liberals can take over the Democratic party but people can boycott the funders of conservatives.

Is it a religion or something?

That's quite the non-starter around these parts, the one thing we agree upon is that capitalism got to go.

The one and only thing that capitalism is good for is increasing production. It has done that better than any productive system in history. Otherwise it immiserates and enthralls the majority, is an inevitable cause of war and is the primary cause of environmental degradation. So I guess you 'believe' in that stuff too.

Liberalism, capitalism, are the enemies of the people, the planet.

How do you propose to destroy capitalism and the current political system?

What party do you belong to?

You can now form a non profit company or you can create a for profit company where the employees share equally in the profits of the company.

If enough people form non profit companies and for profit companies where everyone shares equally in the profits that will change society to a great degree.

You can form a company where everyone gets the same salary.

We can certainly discuss the things you are proposing.

However, your "we are all free to start a business based on our own personal belief systems" is in essence libertarianism, and that will be met with left wing criticism and analysis here. Nor will everyone here agree with the idea that politics is all a matter of personal "belief systems" nor that "all beliefs have equal value." If that does not cause discomfort for you, all will be fine and please do jump in on the discussions.

I do think that your observation that liberals think they can run capitalism and imperialism better is accurate. If you think that this then should preclude any critical analysis of capitalism and imperialism, you would not be successful in calling for the suppression of such critical analysis. Many liberals do want to suppress any and all criticism of capitalism and imperialism, and merely debate about who is better at running capitalism and imperialism -liberals or conservatives - and demand that those be the only two alternatives we consider.

Don't rightly know, but history is a good guide. Trying to figure it out, events are our best guide.

What's the big thing with parties? What difference would that make? Just for you, I'm a member of the Chelonian Liberation Front. Happy?

It is impossible for egalitarianism to survive in a capitalist environment. At the best of times what you suggest is a well meaning dead end.

It all must be torn down and the sooner the better. No compromise on that.

Corporations are funding the liberal organizations and the Democratic party, and the effect for the working people is the same - often worse.

I support boycotting ALL products from the American Capitalist system - that is the analog to your examples of India and South Africa.

Consumer boycotts can be a useful tool, depending on the context. Howver "personal choice" and "personal beliefs" - so popular among liberals as the basis for a political program - are just about useless at best, and reactionary at worst.

and Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez?

These people told others to not cooperate with those who oppressed them in a peaceful matter. With Mohandas Gandhi he launched a revolution which eventually led to the British leaving India and the formation of Two Countries India and Pakistan.

Nelson Mandela also had people not cooperate with the South African National Party and eventually it fell. The major companies in South Africa felt the economic pressure of the world and then had to go to the National Party and beg them to allow for full elections where everyone could vote.

Both leaders had their people and many nations of the world boycott the friends of the oppressive government, who made and sold products.

I'm saying that people should do that here in America. Boycott those conservative funding companies as best as you can in order to get the best progressive legislation in congress.

If you advocate violence then IN NO WAY do I support you.

However if you advocate peaceful methods for change then I will not say that my plans appear better than yours. Just consider what I say. If you accept it, fine. If you reject it fine.

I cannot lead you but I can have you or others who read my words join with me and we can peacefully destroy the conservative coalition in congress.

I got banned from the so called Democratic Underground years ago. Somehow that board appears in line with the DLC, a conservative Democratic organization that appears as negative as the conservatives in the REPUBLIKLAN party.


For those who want to read what I have to say then read http://www.democratz.org

If you want to join in on what I have there, fine. If not then fine.

Thank you.

Never mind "destroying Capitalism." We are still back at "are you willing to consider criticism of Capitalism?"

The political parties are not really anything to "belong" to nor is that some important political expression. Let's say someone says "I belong to the Green party." What does that mean? Who cares? Then we wind up discussing whether or not a person "should" belong to the Green party - no doubt in the context of personal beliefs and personal choices - rather than discussing politics.

Here is a question - what party belongs to the working people?

Why not say what you have to say right here? Why ask us to join you, when you have come here and joined us? Why send us to your website, other than to sell your products? Is that the whole idea of this party of yours? To sell products?

Of all of the institutions of society, business is the one most resistant to any "belief system". It is set-piece, to the extent that it is even illegal to consider any other factor other than the value of the equity of the shareholders. There is no line on any SEC form, tax form, or corporate charter for any such silliness as "social responsibility" or anything else of that sort.

Of course, I suppose it is possible to run an enterprise without stockholders, capital, debt or "entanglements" of any kind...

But, that's not a "business"... that's a "gesture".

To some extent driving a car appears similar to running a company. We have government which regulates both. I believe in the use of government to regulate companies. We have 40 hour work weeks and unions, and yes in the South, Unions appear curtailed, I will not deny that. I also believe in the use of government to help the poor, the disabled, the retired, the unemployed and other people in a less fortunate position. No, government does not appear perfect. Far from it does it appear.

I wanted to see a single payer health care system enacted into law. Unfortunately we have a ruling conservative coalition in congress that prevented it. With my philosophy of going after the companies that give money to conservatives in both the Democratic and RepubliKLAN parties if enough people do so and boycott those companies and demand their CEOs get us the legislation we want, it could possibly happen. Each effort gets tested by the number of people willing to participate in the experiment. In effect we form an ad hoc legislative party or citizen legislature for the purpose of placing economic pressure on those conservative funding companies and forcing them to go to conservatives in both parties.

If you want to join my experiment in consumer democracy please do. If not, ok too.

Go see http://www.democratz.org

Do I believe in boycotting companies that give to liberals? Only if they give to conservatives in either party.

I did not post this here before because I did not realize if it appeared appropriate but since you asked me to post it here, I shall. I have adapted the teachings of Gandhi, King, Mandela and Chavez to the peaceful destruction of the conservative ruling coalition in the United States Congress whose constitution I support.



The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States.


Have the normal ways of fighting the conservative opposition failed? I have a new way of destroying the conservative opposition to progressive legislation. Yes destroying their opposition. Join our new political party where we have more guts than the regular Democrats. We're Democratz!

Make these phone calls and spread the word.

Boycott Tyson Foods of Arkansas who gave Mike Ross D-Ark.
$37,000 for his campaigns. Call lobbyist for Tyson Foods Chuck
Penry 202 393 3921 and tell him politely that you refuse to
buy Tyson chicken until Mike Ross D-Arkansas the leader of the
Blue Dogs on health care gets the entire house and senate
conservative Democrats to help get HR 676 enacted into law.
Tell others to call. Send me email after you call to
info@democratz.org

Boycott American Express who gave Max Baucus $50,000 for his
campaigns. Call Joanna Lambert at 212 640 9668 and politely
tell her you will not use any American Express cards until
Max Baucus gets HR 676 enacted into law. Email me after you call.


Call GOP contributor Rite Aid Pharmacies at 800 325 3737 and
tell the person to get the CEO to get congress to enact HR 676
Single payer health care and enact a new Medicare Prescription
drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of the cost of
drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means
tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare
Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from
Rite Aid Pharmacies.

In 2008 Brown-Forman, the maker of Jack Daniels Whiskey and
Southern Comfort gave Mitch McConnell money for his campaigns.

CALL Brown-Forman AT 502-585-1100 and tell the person who
answers to get the CEO to GET Mitch McConnell to execute no
Republican filibusters and enact the Employee free choice act
into law or you don't buy Jack Daniel's whiskey and Southern
Comfort anymore!

Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 800 443 7266 and
tell the person who answers that you want their CEO to get
congress to enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this
happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.

Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric
Corporation at 800 386 1215 or 203 373 2211 and tell the
person who answers, to tell the GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt that
you want him to get the President to end the war in Iraq
and Afghanistan and until that happens you will not buy
any GE products and that you will tell your friends about this.


The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States functions as a progressive legislative political party.

You can join at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liberaldemocraticpartyusa/

We do not run candidates for office. We usually support PROGRESSIVE candidates of the Democratic party of the United States.

We do not handle money and we do not charge money for membership and we do not raise money.

So you can join our party and still remain a member of the Democratic, Green, Labor, or other progressive party you belong to.

Instead we create referenda on legislation by boycott petitions where we target the companies which sell consumer products and associate themselves with conservatives. We demand that these company CEOs get the legislation that we want and until that happens our members send letters to these companies indicating we will boycott them.

Why do we use boycotts? Well I hope if Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, or Mohandas Gandhi appeared alive today that they would advocate boycotts of the friends of those who oppose our legislation, in a climate where those who donate money to office holders exercise too much influence over legislation.

Please sign these NEW petitions for single payer health care HR676 as primary legislation or for HR676 as the public option.

http://bit.ly/traitorjoe

http://bit.ly/public_option

http://bit.ly/HR676

http://bit.ly/single_payer_snowe

http://bit.ly/single_payer_ross

http://bit.ly/single_payer_exxon

http://bit.ly/single_payer_california

http://bit.ly/drug_benefit

Also sign these petitions.

http://bit.ly/EFCA

http://bit.ly/10_an_hour_min_wage

http://bit.ly/women_freedom_of_choice_act

Unless...Have you posted in the 9/11 forum? You might make a killing there...

I do not subscribe to Libertarian beliefs. I do believe in regulated business and taxation to help the poor, the retired, the disabled, the unemployed and others less fortunate in our country.

I will not take blame for the imperfect practices of a government which the entire population forms every single minute. It appears our responsibility to make the changes that we want to see in government and society.

Libertarians want to see a police state and that I do not subscribe to. Yes we need policing and armed forces but we need to create strong social programs to help those less fortunate.

I marvel at the Republiklan party who rails against big government. They really believe in big government police state and welfare for corporations but no government for social programs. They lie to the public.

When they rail against socialism the Republiklan party officials and officeholders do not rail against the socialist police or fire departments, or the socialist armed forces or the socialist highways but when they HYPOCRITICALLY rail against socialism they really mean social security, medicare, or any new social program.

The Republiklan party leaders despise unions of working people but they HYPOCRITCALLY don't despise the union of businesses called the Star Chamber of Commerce.

When the working class forms a party, I'll join it...

the "less fortunate". So do you support the system that creates the poor?

There is nothing for us to talk about. I'm sick to the teeth of liberals and their kinder friendlier capitalism.

Let me ask you. What system do you want to create and will that system not create the poor as you say?

I will work within this system to alleviate the problems of the less fortunate to the greatest extent that I can and that includes using the government to do so. I stand as one person and to the extent that my proposals will influence people on many bulletin board systems, not just this one, I will succeed in helping the less fortunate.

Millions of people in this country want to help the less fortunate. I suppose those conservatives do not care very much about the less fortunate.

I do hold hope in the progressive and liberal community to continue to help the less fortunate. Can we prevent poor people. No, but we can help them with the government and with private methods. I believe in government help for the less fortunate because not enough private organizations exist to do so and I do not believe that people have to submit themselves to some private organizations religious requirements to get help.

I believe in religion and I do I consider myself not very religious and I do not believe in imposing my religious beliefs on other people.

I shall not bother you with my opinions any more. I do not want to make you sick.

However other people might want to do what I suggest and that appears their right.

but the owner class. I can't create any system, but I think that any communist system would not create a class of poor people - it would work toward a social classlessness that would eliminate poverty.

You keep referring to "the less fortunate" - that is a grating phrase. "Fortune" has noting to do with it. The poor and working class people in this capitalist country are exploited, oppressed and suppressed by the very system you want to "work within". It is capitalism that has created the poor and capitalism will maintain a large under class because that is what it does,

So, no thank you to your Liberal/Progressive/Libertarian Party.

I have no use for Liberals or progressives - they are just capitalist water carriers (Libertarians are not even worth mentioning)...

Here are a few comments for your consideration.

You say that "millions of people in this country want to help the less fortunate," which of course means that those wanting to do this helping are not the less fortunate, but rather the more fortunate, and those would be the people you are appealing do. Newsflash - 90% of the people in the country are "the less fortunate." Liberalism does appeal to the upper 10%, and you are correct that they are looking for ways to "help the less fortunate" for the purpose of preserving their own positions and to assuage their guilt, as opposed to addressing the root cause of poverty.

You ask what system we "want to create?" None of us are in a position to create or impose any system on anyone, nor do I think any of us want to do that. Let the people create their own system, rather than having the wealthy few create the system. Our job is to fight for that, not to play at fantasies about "alternative systems."

Can we prevent poor people? (I assume you mean prevent people being poor.) Of course we can. That has been the rule throughout the existence of the human race. The idea that poverty is inevitable, and so therefore all we can do is help out the less fortunate, is absurd and also very much an upper class point of view. How can one advocate for the working class from an upper class point of view, and how can one help the less fortunate if they are not advocating for the working class?

"Working within the system" is, by the way, precisely how we got where we are today.

I don't think we are properly conveying our definition of Have Nots. Further, I think our friend here is using a very cunning definition of Have Not to try and conflate his ideas with ours when in fact they are diametrically opposed

If the "Haves" entails anyone who is not currently under water and/or people who have some token material possessions, then his version of reality may well hold. But it is beyond obvious how fatuous such a definition must be.

The Haves are the ones wielding political power, the ones whom the system of buying and selling aggrandizes, the ones who control the labor of everyone else on the planet.

It is really rather simple to do, though I imagine some wrinkles might need ironing out as the "Reform" plays itself out.

Simply pass a Federal Law making it legal for an employee to beat his/her employer within an inch of his/her life if said beating should arise as a result of a labor dispute.

Now, the most immediate problem I see is the potential of bosses hiring bodyguards in case of labor disputes... so a formal system of duels would probably have to be put into place as well, to force the boss to fight for him/herself. Come to think of it, it might be good to be able to challenge boardmembers to a duel as well. Of course, the bosses would soon be learning fencing and shooting and so on in their private schools... I'm thinking that a provision for signing up multiple duels on the same day might be of use- though the line of 10 employees willing to take a stabbing at the boss' hand before he/she is so tired that the 11th finally "settles" the labor dispute might mean a higher threshold before labor would dispute in that company... but then again, they would still have the "right" to not work there.

Hey, what say you boycott stuff until you get this bill passed? Once it's signed into law by President Never-Gonna-Happen, I'm on board with the boycotting.

but I really like the "heart" of it! We can work out the details as we go along. Yeah, this is something I could get behind!


:booga:

:getdown: