General Discussion

2012-12-31T19:16:11+00:00

Then maybe we'd actually have a fuctioning democracy that serves the people instead of one that kowtows to sleazy corporate & corrupt inner-party interests. Now tombstone me. Enjoy Gitmo, your fucking war in Afghanistan, & having your SS & medicare slashed. And make sure you rank & file types keep kidding yourselves that those things are only worthy of critical commentary when a Republican is President. Better yet, just keep grabbing ankle. That's what we've done best as a people for over 200 years & our scumbag politicians know it. Some of you really need to take a close look in the mirror. You're EVERYTHING you pretend to despise....and in some cases, worse. To the true progressives here, I wish you all the best.

Post removed Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:16 PM Dec 2012

Post removed

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed (Original Post) Post removed Dec 2012 OP

Yawn. Bye. nt babylonsister Dec 2012 #1

I've seen better exits BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #2

Dramatic, isn't he? Itchinjim Dec 2012 #3

Yeah, splintered parties would really make it easy to get things done, NOT! DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #4

Need my eyes checked. Wait Wut Dec 2012 #5

Passive Aggressive? Not nearly descriptive enough Siwsan Dec 2012 #6

I don't think further complexity is going to help this situation NoOneMan Dec 2012 #7

We would need a parliamentary system for that, although Cleita Dec 2012 #8

Thanks for all of your valuable support! Walk away Dec 2012 #9

Bye and Happy New Year! CakeGrrl Dec 2012 #10

GBCW!! PeaceNikki Dec 2012 #11

babylonsister

(172,694 posts)

1. Yawn. Bye. nt

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:17 PM

Dec 2012

BeyondGeography

(40,988 posts)

2. I've seen better exits

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:18 PM

Dec 2012

Itchinjim

(3,181 posts)

3. Dramatic, isn't he?

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:18 PM

Dec 2012

DrewFlorida

(1,096 posts)

4. Yeah, splintered parties would really make it easy to get things done, NOT!

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:19 PM

Dec 2012

Wait Wut

(8,492 posts)

5. Need my eyes checked.

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:21 PM

Dec 2012

I read, "...and a Fourth, fifth & SITH"

A Sith party would be undesirable.

Siwsan

(27,830 posts)

6. Passive Aggressive? Not nearly descriptive enough

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

Dec 2012

I just finished weeding through the previous B_R post and I am officially GOBSMACKED

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)

7. I don't think further complexity is going to help this situation

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

Dec 2012

We probably need no parties at this point. No dependence. Regional resiliency. Simplification and reduction of consumption.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)

8. We would need a parliamentary system for that, although

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:23 PM

Dec 2012

it is something I would be willing to discuss. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. However, you really need to put your complaints in meta.