Corporate party A and Corporate party B

[Pharaoh]

Seen on Facebook...........



Break free of the left vs right indoctrinated, brainwashed belief system. TPTB designed the 2 party system as a means to utilize the Divide and Conquer strategy against We The People; a guarantee that we would never Unite !

[IMG][/IMG]

[scheming daemons]

1. More of the bullshit false-equivalency meme that gave us Bush in 2000

Be suspicious of threads over the next 4 months that try to tell you there is no difference between the parties.

It is demonstrably false ... and it is the kind of stuff spread by trolls.

[Quantess]

3. There ARE real differences between the 2 parties

but both ARE run by corporate interests. It's difficult to argue that isn't true.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Differences? Indeed.

Like the differences between Tide and Ivory Snow. Tide has oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser.

But, as Arundhati Roy famously pointed out, they're both manufactured by the same corporation.

[arely staircase]

73. well put

Those are not mutually exclusive categories are they? Both parties put corporate interests almost exclusively above anything else but when all is said and done they do represent very different classes of base voter-organizer-small money contributor. And so there are real differences in policy but the wealthy and the corporations always have their finger on the scale. They always have and always will. How often and with what force depends on everyone else willingness to stop them.

[sabrina 1]

6. The Supreme Court gave us Bush in 2000

Besides, I thought Nader was the scapegoat of choice to cover for the felonious five.

[freedom fighter jh]

17. +1 But . . .

. . . in addition to the Supreme Court, it was the shenanigans that went on with voting before things got to the SC: the purging of lots of people of color from the voter rolls, the confusing butterfly ballots. And with secretly coded electronic voting becoming common, who knows what other manipulations?

Bottom line: There are plenty of places besides Nader to place the blame.

[GarroHorus]

21. I put the blame on third party idiocy like is spouted in the OP n/t

[sabrina 1]

60. The blame for Bush stealing the election belongs only to the USSC.

[arely staircase]

74. no nader deserves some and gore deserves some

Gore could have won his home state if he had tried hard enough and Nader won enough votes in Florida that it is reasonable to assume that had he not participated in their primary Gore would have won it. The SCOTUS would never have gotten the case IMHO had the other two factors not been there.

[sabrina 1]

95. Gore won the election, so obviously he succeeded in overcoming

all of the LEGAL and constitutional challenges he faced. Why do people keep forgetting this? So no, Nader had zero to do with Gore's loss for the simple reason that he did not lose. The SC is solely responsible for that when they stepped in after it was clear that Gore was going to win that election.

[arely staircase]

100. nader put florida within steeling distance (imho) nt

[L0oniX]

15. Repuke-bad corporation vs Democratic-good corporation.

I'm more suspicious of responses that diminish the effect of corporations on our government.

[GarroHorus]

19. I wish I could rec individual posts in a fail thread

[BlueCaliDem]

62. + 1 ~ They're looking for another win a la GWBush

because they can't run on R'money's record.

You're correct . . . be veeeery suspicious of the false equivalency because it appears to only happen on our side.

[Permanut]

2. Oversimplification...

Certain members of the two parties share characteristics, actions and policies in common, and some are indeed reprehensible, like the effect of corporate money (which seems to be Chomsky's underlying point, and a good one), but there are significant differences - preaching to the choir here - that give rise to such phenomena as Democratic Underground and Freeperville, which have very little in common.

I was not taught to recoil from the hate and hypocrisy on the right by TPTB; I do so from my own principles.

[joelz]

4. under simplification the majority of americans wanted single payer they got

to buy private health insurance from companies that give to both parties read more chomsky or hedges here a bit from Cris

The debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act illustrates the impoverishment of our political life. Here is a law that had its origin in the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was first put into practice in 2006 in Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney and was solidified into federal law after corporate lobbyists wrote legislation with more than 2,000 pages. It is a law that forces American citizens to buy a deeply defective product from private insurance companies. It is a law that is the equivalent of the bank bailout bill—some $447 billion in subsidies for insurance interests alone—for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. It is a law that is unconstitutional. And it is a law by which President Barack Obama, and his corporate backers, extinguished the possibilities of both the public option and Medicare for all Americans. There is no substantial difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. There is no substantial difference between Obama and Romney. They are abject servants of the corporate state. And if you vote for one you vote for the other.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_health_care_debate_20120409/

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. "There is no substantial difference between Obama and Romney"

Well, we now know this is a lie: "It is a law that is unconstitutional". Perhaps the author should consider a rewrite? Oh, and by the way....

"We know we went through some pretty ugly periods here during the Obama presidency, but at this point it looks like almost everyone here is on-board with President Obama already, and we don't anticipate that changing. (To be clear, you don't get a green light to relentlessly trash President Obama if you claim you are going to vote for him. As the TOS say: If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.)

Having said all that, please be aware that the DU Terms of Service are pretty strict, and we don't cut a great deal of slack to people who violate them. If you are here to advocate on behalf of Mitt Romney or some lost-cause third-party spoiler, you will be banned. We're unlikely to give you a warning first because -- let's face it -- if you are supporting someone other than Barack Obama you are on the wrong website. We don't care if you live in the bluest blue state, or the reddest red state -- President Obama is our candidate."

Skinner, EarlG, Elad
DU Administrators

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=1399

[Raster]

12. There are MANY substantial differences between President Obama and Rmoney. Many.

The original post was NOT about President Obama nor Mr. Rmoney. The original post was pointing out that both parties are "....somewhat different, but carry out the substantially same policies..."

In addition, both parties are soaked up to their eyeballs in corporate funds, and beholden to corporate interests.

The original poster was NOT advocating on behalf of Mr. Rmoney nor advocating a third-party spoiler.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. A rose by any other name still smells.....

And if you'll pretend you don't know the goal of the o.p. and subsequent posts in support of the o.p., then we have nothing further to say to each other.

It's classic passive agressive behavior to skirt the rules, and a not so subtle attempt at suppression. We saw this republican enabling shit in 2000, and it's being repeated. You may choose to give it a pass if you wish, but "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Because Al Gore would have invaded Iraq...

Oh, wait...

[sabrina 1]

7. Joe Lieberman would not have urged him to go to war with Iraq?

How do you explain all the Dems voting for it then? And continuing to this day to vote to fund it?

Lieberman as his choice for VP makes me wonder what he might have done had he been president. Lieberman is a total warmonger when it comes to the ME.

[aquart]

37. Are you implying that Iraq was a threat to Israel? How?

I always love classically understated anti-Semitism.

[sabrina 1]

61. Are you out of your mind??? I want some proof of that false allegation please.

Lieberman was Gore's VP choice. Lieberman fully supported Bush's lies about Iraq.

Now please show me how you made the huge leap from those facts to anti-semitism and I expect an apology. I have no alerted on your post, because I rarely do that, but I want you to explain how you came to make that egregiously false statement.

Edited to ask: Are you implying that we went to Iraq for Israel? I will await your answer before deciding whether or not this is a conspiracy theory you are pushing here.

[hay rick]

63. Any criticism of Joe Lieberman is anti-semitic?

Lieberman was an enthusiastic sponsor of the War in Iraq. Sometimes facts are just facts. Nothing else is "implied"...

[sabrina 1]

102. Thank you. Pretty stunning and totally false allegation

and no apology either. Not that it was expected.

[StarryNight]

8. there may be a dime's worth of difference, but that's about it. nt

[SidDithers]

10. Lots of bullshit gets posted on facebook...

why are you bringing it here?

Sid

[Son of Gob]

11. Because he wants people to vote against Democrats.

[GarroHorus]

23. If I could rec a post in a fail thread, I'd rec yours. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

99. Look for more of this stuff as we get closer to the election.

[L0oniX]

13. He's trying to piss you off.

[white_wolf]

47. Bullshit? Chomsky is one of the few voices that actually speaks the truth in this country.

Everything he said in that statement was a fact.

[GarroHorus]

56. Funy, I have yet to see Chomsky say much of anything that was true. n/t

[pa28]

76. His decades of distinguished work just sank like the Titanic.

Nice one bro.

Even though you misspelled "funny" the whole critique still holds up.

[Iggy]

78. Ever hear of Sen Feinstein?

one of the wealthiest, if not THE wealthiest senator?

No conflict of interest with the other capital investment company that starts with a "B"? Richard Blum...
Hellooooooooo?

what a load.

[GarroHorus]

79. Ever hear of reality?

Chomsky lives in fantasyland. He's a moron.

[white_wolf]

86. Yes, one of the most respected men in his field is a "moron."

Just admit, you can't stand anyone who criticizes the Democratic Party, even if the criticism is true.

[sabrina 1]

101. Are you sure you are in the right place?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. But..but..we do get to vote for "not as bad". Not "good" mind you, but "not as bad".

Will that be one teaspon, or two, of arsenic, sir?

[L0oniX]

16. Aren't we voting for corporations either way?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Not directly, you silly. Just for their employees.

[L0oniX]

32. My bad.

[GarroHorus]

18. Fail thread is EPIC FAIL n/t

[sabrina 1]

103. Thanks for reminding me to rec it. Rec'd for Chomsky

hated by the Right, because he was on them a long time ago.

Btw, I asked before, but are you sure you are in the right place? You seem lost.

[L0oniX]

22. Lots of people hate Chomsky ...doesn't matter to them if he is right.

[GarroHorus]

24. Chomsky is almost always WRONG n/t

[L0oniX]

28. Enjoy your stay here.

[marmar]

30. Did you forget the sarcasm smiley?

nt

[GarroHorus]

34. No, Chomsky is a fucking idiot and almost always wrong. n/t

[marmar]

36. Umm, okay.

nt

[L0oniX]

64. Obviously some have come here from CluelessUnderground.duh

[marmar]

65. I know. It's all rather funny, in a tragicomic kind of way.

nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Chomsky is (EEEK!!) Too liberal!!

But, it is fun to watch the "moderates" squirm and rationalize the two-party/one boss system.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Know what would be even funnier? If Chomsky could get elected dogcatcher. ANYWHERE!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Chomsky isn't a politician. And, he's too damned honest to be a successful one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. "Too honest"? Translation: If you can't do? Critcize.

The last refuge of an unelectable scoundrel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Alas, we have a government made up of electable scoundrels.

But, thanks for pointing that out.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. Do me a favor? Please tell me what it is that liberals do between presidential elections?

If, as seems to be the run of the mill complaint, both parties suck equally, what are you guys doing between elections? I've got news for you & Noam, pointing fingers is not a strategy, and typing angry screeds on the internet is not activism. How many people know, or even give a shit who Noam Chomsky is?

I beg you, do something besides complaining. The tea party did it. They started small, by grooming candidates who could take over school boards, and city councils. Liberals should stop talking so much, find people who adhere to your strict ideology, who want to run under your banner, and finally put some skin in the game. Venting your spleen here does absolutely nothing in furtherance of your ultimate goal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. I'm not angry, I'm amused.

Being an Anarchist, I don't have a "Strict ideology" or a "banner".

I'm just a citizen who thinks that holding (alleged) "public servants" accountable is the responsibility of the citizens of an (alleged) democracy no matter which of the establishment parties they belong to.

You seem to be the one with the "strict ideology" and have found candidates to run under your "banner".

Nor did I say that both parties "suck equally". I've been a registered Democrat since 1965 and usually vote for Democratic nominees. But, I don't give them a pass just because they're "not as bad".

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that this BIG tent is your personal....

playground. Many belief systems under our BIG tent. As I stated before, pissing and moaning on the internet is in no way, activism. The time to voice all the many grievances of the chronically discontent begins with organizing meetings within your local party establishment. Ever hear of bottom/up?

That's the problem I have with you guys, you pop up every four years, make a bunch of noise, and are rarely heard from in between. Why you guys think this country is clamoring for some US version of Hugo Chavez, is truly baffling, and a bit absurd. There's been no indication of that, not since Bill Clinton was in the White House. Every candidate who has run to the hard left has been, and will continue to be, soundly rejected by the rank-n-file. If "liberals" are convinced that they know what's best for all of us, why have they been unable to convince the party at large? Primaries are where we duke it out, and the last one standing always seems to be moderate/center-left. Why is that?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. Why? See the OP.

We have two capitalist parties who are beholden to the monied interests who pay them well with bribes..er...campaign contributions.

Unfortunately, the "Big Tent" is bought and paid for by the capitalists and run by their lackeys.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. Aren't they all dead? How far back you wanna take us?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Noam Chomsky is dead??

Do you discount the others words because they're dead? So are FDR, Truman, and the Kennedys. But, since you pointed to Clinton, I can guess that the 3rd Way sell outs are your ideal.

[rudycantfail]

106. When you get a rebuttal like #90

do you ever wonder, "why the hell do I even bother?"

[Fumesucker]

51. Oh, it matters to them, they hate Chomsky because he *is* correct. n/t

[Marrah_G]

27. Right on Noam!

[GarroHorus]

33. It's interesting how posts promoting third party movements are allowed to stand on DU

Maybe this forum should be renamed Third Party Underground.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Are you fearful that the OP might effect your vote?

Or, anyone's? This is a discussion board. Not an echo chamber for the establishment.

[GarroHorus]

44. ANYBODY who is not 100% behind Obama and is posting on this forum is my enemy. n/t

[marmar]

46. Spare us the GW Bush ultimatum bullshit.....You can be completely behind Obama.....

...... and still criticize Democratic Party policies. That Stasi guard lockstep crap is tired.

[GarroHorus]

49. That's the kind of shit that lead to Holder being held in contempt.

Because the right wing backed Bush 100%, nobody was ever going to be held in contempt, but the bullshit from leftist purists createds a climate where the right is emboldened for this sort of shit.

Fuck that shit. Anybody engaged in it is as much my enemy as Limbaugh.

[marmar]

54. 'createds a climate where the right is emboldened for this sort of shit'

No. Weak-kneed centrists and Blue Dogs who don't fight and ally with the Repugs created that climate. The "leftists" aren't the problem.

[GarroHorus]

57. Cenk Uygur, Noam Chomsky, David Sirota, and idiots like them are the problem. n/t

[marmar]

58. So Noam Chomsky forced 17 Dems to vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt?

The intellectual dishonesty is laughable.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

94. It seems to me that it is you that is the problem.

[leftstreet]

50. Maybe that's why the membership here is so low

ya think?

[GarroHorus]

52. Good point

Mostly people who have nothing good to say about the Democratic Party any way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. How about 99%? 85%? 44%? Or, are you a complete "purist" and only 100% is good enough?

[GarroHorus]

75. Right now, 100% is imperative. Anything less makes the person my enemy.

Period.

[girl gone mad]

80. That's just loco.

Maybe even a little bit loco zoco.

[rudycantfail]

107. That's a DUzy!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. And, you're calling others "purists"?

I love irony.

[sabrina 1]

104. Save that rightwing 'with us or against us'

for non-Democratic boards. You seem to have forgotten what board you are posting on.

[progressoid]

96. The OP is not promoting a third party movement.

I see it as encouraging us to break our party from it's big business ties.

[GarroHorus]

97. Any post making the "Republicans and Democrats are the same" bullshit argument,...

by its very nature is advocating for third parties.

[progressoid]

98. In your opinion.

Pointing out our party's embrace of corporate cash and power does not necessarily mean advocating third parties.

I will stay a Democrat and fight to return the party to it's liberal and progressive ideals. In fact I think it's my duty as a Democrat to do so. A third party consideration doesn't enter into the equation.

[white_wolf]

39. Once again Chomsky speaks the truth.

I wish we had a couple 100 more of him around and a lot less of these pragmatic "centrists" and "moderates." I'm sick of their right-wing bullshit.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. You know what they say...."wish in one hand......"

Like there's some big demand, in the U.S., for the Noam Chomsky's of the world. Hell, there's not even a demand for Chomsky in the Democratic Party.

[iamthebandfanman]

41. I recced

because i agree...
but as long as the system is the way it is.. ill vote democratic


ill just keep hopin' one day we will finally have a 4 party system (not 3, i dont think 3 helps anybody)...

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. In case you didn't notice, there are tons of parties. They're completely unelectable, but....

they're there, and on the ballot every four years.

[GarroHorus]

45. and are DIRECTLY responsible for 8 years of Bush. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. Exactly. nt

[DeSwiss]

48. Correct assessment.

[font size=4]The Siamese Twins[/font]


- And anyone who can't see this is blind in one eye, and can't see out the other......

K&R

[McCamy Taylor]

53. Same as Gore Vidal's "money party"---but with Citizens United one side is getting all the corporate

money. So, now there is a difference.

Interesting sentiment for a post at DU.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

55. I understand the point, BUT...

Unless you're ready to storm the Bastille and bust out the guillotines (and I might follow you if you do, but YOU make the first move, okay?) then working within the system is all we can do.

Otherwise, sitting here and making blanket statements without really researching each individual circumstance is meaningless and distracting. For example, do you even know how the ACA came about or do you just assume in your fantasy world that the nefarious PTB met in a dark room (like at Jekyll Island all those years ago) to unleash their dastardly plans upon the American people? It was a process, and like any process undertaken in the American legislative system, major compromises were eventually made. Do you know why the two-parties sometimes seem the same? Because they have to compromise like this all the time and neither ever gets what they really want.

Is there a level of corporatism that I want OUT of politics completely? Yes. Based on JUST that fact can you assume that both parties are the same? NO...it's a logical fallacy, at best and a way to undermine their very real differences in an attempt to disempower those that support them, at worst.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. No-one's stopping you breaking free of the Democratic Party

Just leave it, if it pisses you off so much. It would make more sense to moan about it somewhere else than on a Democratic-supporting site, though.

[RevStPatrick]

66. Corporate party D and Corporate party R

The Blue and The Red.

I call them the Global Corporate Socialists and the Global Corporate Fascists.
I'll take the Global Corporate Socialists every time, but there are certainly things I don't like about them, and I'd rather have some more real choices...

[kentuck]

67. More true today than any time I can remember...

Really. How different were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan?

[ErikJ]

68. Corporations OWN the GOP and RENT the Dems.

[ErikJ]

69. T. Hartmann video- There's a Major Difference in the Two Party Platforms

[Le Taz Hot]

72. I find the fact that Chomsky's critics

are made of the right wing and "third-way" Democrats more than a little coincidental.

[sabrina 1]

105. Yep, lots of people have noticed that.

Ironically while they rail against Chomsky, they only help to prove him correct.

We must save this Party from the right wing infiltrators who call themselves the 'third way'. It is our party and we should never have been so casual about what was going on to bring rightwing policies into this party.

'Big Tent' did not mean absorbing the right into the mix. They have their own party. The Dem Party is the party of the people, NOT the party Corporate America and I think Chomsky and others want to see people fight to maintain at least one party that operates for the people.

[Drale]

77. Ok if there is really no difference

then lets just elect all Democrats since it won't matter.

[dionysus]

83. yay, more anti-dem bullshit on DU... take it over to the treebaggers, they'll love it.

[Nye Bevan]

88. Yeah sure. Both parties are the same, so why bother to vote?

This type of post is theoretically against DU rules during election season; however, the jury voted 3-3 to keep.

[treestar]

92. So do what, close all businesses?

Let's have no businesses and no jobs!

[dtom67]

108. Critical Observations are far more valid than Blind Political masterbation...

This post is a fair assessment of our situation. Why do you think Obama is trying to run without corporate donations?

If being confronted by an idea like this makes you stay home instead of voting then good riddance. This post should be food for thought. Chomsky is not interested in our bi-cameral system . He really isn't concerned with being a "Liberal", either. He is a utopian thinker who believes that grass-roots movements are the key to winning a just society. He really has nothing to do with political discourse within our political system( i.e. he is neither a Democrat, nor a liberal. He is, however, a populist. This makes him OK in my book.)
His Quote being posted here should be seen as an attempt to keep us honest; If any among you believe that corporations don't write policy in Democratic administrations, than you are truly naive. It is an issue we must address before both parties really do become the same.

Posts that promote endless fist-pumping about how we are gonna "destroy Romney in november " are far more likely to make people stay home on election day than posts of dissent. Why vote if Obama is a shoo-in?

Of course, he is not a shoo-in.

We have to keep pushing to raise awareness and get out the vote.

[joshcryer]

109. Chomsky is of course right, but he endorsed Obama.

[Huey P. Long]

110. occupy. -eom

[MineralMan]

111. Chomsky is a recognized expert at linguistics.

He has earned a distinguished reputation in his field.

[jenias]

112. Spam deleted by azurnoir (MIR Team)