[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.
[/quote]
That’s why the republicans to a man tried to prevent the catastrophe of national health care. And also why the republicans constantly push for tax cuts for EVERYBODY.
Do you have any idea what this country would look like if the democrats controlled the white house and both houses of congress for a long period of time? Take a look at a couple of the blue states like California or New York to find out.
There is a huge difference between the two parties. But you actually have to fully understand what each party represents and then keep abreast of what they do to understand this.
[/quote]
Yeah they are both ends to the same mean. You have the republicans short sightedness in privatizing and selling off programs and things that are already paid for or budgeted for through tax dollars. For example Rick Perry here in Texas trying to sell the state lotto or toll rights on a freeway that is already completed and paid for in exchange for a small percentage of what would be made by simply increasing the cost of those services as both corporations would stipulated in the contracts and which would yield them over 5 times their investment. We either have the dumbest public officials or the dumbest public and seeing who is going to benefit financially I think I know which one it is.
Or you have the democrats that pass a healthcare bill that violates my freedom of speech as was ruled by the supreme courts decision that money = Freedom of speech in the case that said no cap could be placed on campaign contributions by corporations because it would violate their freedom of speech.
Someone else mention that Obama kept the same players as Bush and Clinton and I posted a link showing that his financial cabinet did involve those same players. Both agendas have a complete disregard for the public welfare and the rights of the citizens of this country, while showing a favoritism to corporations and the ultra wealthy. Keep clinging to you Tea Bagger reformist hopes, what a bunch of winners came out of there in the election.
For the record the whole notion of Insurance was always a social welfare program even when run for profit. The idea is that you take a risk and spread it over a larger population to minimize the cost to the individual in the event that they suffer a loss. Doesn’t get more socialist. Companies like Blue Cross and Blue shield use to be non-profit insurance companies, and still are in a few parts of the country, but do to the ability of for profit insurance to cut the services and deny claims and deny eligibility it made it increasingly harder for them to stay competitive.
This is not necessarily a good thing since as well all know as we get old our likely hood to need these services increases greatly. The US has 1/3 of its population reaching the end of their life in the next 30 years and these costs are going to sky rocket. Private insurance is not going to continue to accept that exposure if given the opportunity to drop these people, and the current system will allow them all to receive the most expensive end term care by checking into the emergency room when they are sick or dieing. Health care reform as a discussing is not an option, it will bankrupt our country if we do not do something now. I agree that what was passed is insufficient and a blowjob to corporate america as Bill Maher put it, but the ideas I have heard thrown around by the republicans are a ridiculous fantasy. The most current being a voucher system with a 15K cap. What happens when they use up the 15K? I know as republicans you cannot think 3 step ahead to see what will happen, but you want to talk about a death panel being the decision maker in these peoples end of care fate, this is just telling them to fuck of and die. Which to be honest with, I am actually for, as I hate that whole generation of baby boomer’s, those greedy self entitled bunch of hypocrites.
Anyway, I am not a republican or a democrat and I think that accepting either a blanketing political view is lazy. I also think that it is pointless as I mentioned as both are being propped up with funding from the same corporations. Until we pass meaningful campaign reform or term limits it is a sinking ship that will not likely be saved no matter who you put in office. Greed seems to continually put immediate profit before the longterm success of both the companies and the populations. That is how the corporation is designed to work so it is really working perfectly.
[/quote]
What makes you think that your world view is ambitious, or unique in any way? Lumping democrats and republicans together? That’s perhaps the laziest, and certainly most naive point of view that can be held. As I’ve already pointed out there are large and very clear differences between the two political parties from taxes to abortion and everything in between.
If you think that a third party is going to rise up and take control think again. And even if they did they would have to work with a both houses of congress filled with democrats and republicans. So, tell me how much would an “independent” President get done? So you have two problems here. The first, you are (for some reason) unable to see major differences in the two parties which I think is a spectacularly narrow view. And the second, you are waiting for a boat that is NEVER going to dock called a third party.