Rule 1 of Modern Politics: All political parties are corrupted or will be corrupted
Discuss, add, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-02 18:57
Politics is essentially the science of reducing corruption, or at least ethical politics is.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-02 23:52
politicians are choice architechs
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-03 0:19
If your a republicunt never ever answer a question just repeat stupid talking points till people minds are numb All shit that cant really be contected but sound good than YELL THAT HIPPY SOCIALIST DOES NOT LOVE OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!
>>4
But, I DON'T love our country...I don't feel enough wealth is taken from others to support my lazy lifestyle..
Name:
Unhappy Teenager2011-01-03 16:44
George Washington warned against the US becoming a two party nation, and look at how much gets done because of it.
I want people to stop pointing fingers, pull their heads out of their assholes and cooperate to get shit done that needs to be done, instead of getting all butthurt about the simplest things and dropping filibusters constantly.
I can't wait until the reigning generation dies, all it comes with is prejudice, baseless hate and nitpicking over unimportant shit. If they see something they don't like, they think that makes it okay to take away everyone else's rights.
tl;dr 'Merica sucks because of a two party system and old people fuck everything up for the rest of us because they can.
In America, corruption is called things like «fund-raising» and «lobbyism».
Another example of 'Merica Is Phuxx0rd:
Strip away fundamental rights like freedom of speech (remember, WikiLeaks is a symptom), freedom of press (big media is talking over), gun ownership, invention (corporations are patenting non-inventions, old inventions, and even existing human genes), etc, and watch Americans march in lockstep at the behest of big media and politicians, because «zomg terrorists» and «think of the children!».
...but try changing the medical system to one that does not ass-rape people's economy, and then they start harping on the constitution and inalienable freedoms and «free us from the commies» and «think of the children!».
Protip: You don't get rid of Michael Moore (or his message) by proving him right.
>>10
It's not as much fun to ad-lib if you provide use braces to work with.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-13 13:14
>> 10
"Pro-tip" hahaha very good!
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 2:57
>>10
You can't expect intelligent, eloquent discourse from the opposition that's lumped together under the banner name, "Tea Party", especially since it's been hijacked by the establishment Republican party now.
There are much more effective ways at opposing the status quo and where it's heading, but that requires an individual to absorb a worldview that largely ignores the two mainline parties in Congress and elsewhere. Not many are willing to do that, since watching talking points on Fox News is convenient and effortless.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 10:25
>>13
I'm curious about people repeatedly making a point to say the Tea Party was hijacked by the Republican party. Based on what merits are you maintaining that position? It seems more likely to think that the Republican party was virtually the only major political party that gave them an ear and it's the Tea Party that has been trying to hijack them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 15:46
Oh no!
This is SO confusing!!!
Who's hijacking who???
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 21:11
>>14 I'm curious about people repeatedly making a point to say the Tea Party was hijacked by the Republican party.
Because it started as a largely grassroots effort, and the Republican party was looking for a way to gain back control of Congress, so they tapped into the populism and made it their "manifest destiny" of sorts; after their crushing defeat in the 2006 Congressional elections for the makeup of the 110th Congress.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 21:17
Some vague boogeyman, generally "the rich" or "socialists," is always trying to screw "the people" over
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 22:02
>>16
That doesn't implicate who hijacked what, though. As I mentioned, the Republican Party was the only one to take the Tea Party even slightly seriously. Maybe some other indepeddents and few Blue Dogs, but mostly the Republicans. Even today, it's obvious that there's still a distance between the informal Tea Party(ies) (as it has splinter group organization to begin with) and the Republican party.
A presumption: you belittle them because they did not form their own formal political party or handle themselves like any of the obvious political parties.
>>18 That doesn't implicate who hijacked what, though.
The Tea Party movement started as a sort of libertarian-esque/populist grassroots movement, that evolved out of the anti-income tax protests throughout the 1990s. It had potential to be real opposition to the two party status-quo, but didn't. As I mentioned, the Republican Party was the only one to take the Tea Party even slightly seriously.
Because of the position the party (Republican) was in after the 2006 Congressional elections. They used this to win them back control of the House. Even today, it's obvious that there's still a distance between the informal Tea Party(ies) (as it has splinter group organization to begin with) and the Republican party.
Nowhere as much as is the case today. A presumption: you belittle them because they did not form their own formal political party or handle themselves like any of the obvious political parties.
Wrong. I belittle them because it's largely anti-intellectual, brain-damaged populism that offers no clearly defined solutions to any perceived status-quo problem except "returning to the Constitution" which is nothing more than rhetoric for public consumption. It's just used as year-round muscle for the Republican party; saying that it was "hijacked" instead requires less typing.
The "liberal" (to use the American colloquialism) version of the Tea Party; the "Coffee Party", turned out to be even more pathetic.
>>20
Obviously. And for the record >>22 is also the samefag as >>16 and >>18.
>>21 It had potential to be real opposition to the two party status-quo, but didn't.
But it wasn't supposed to. It wasn't a third party. It intentionally was meant to be the nagging backseat driver. anti-intellectual, brain-damaged populism
"Brain-damaged" is uncalled for, but what counts as "intellectual" to make them the "anti?"
Anyway, the "Coffee Party" is by their own admission the "anti-Tea Party." Saddling itself with that belittling task, there was no way it could not sputter. It just blends into the rest of the political noise the Tea Party positioned against as contrasting backdrop, unintentionally making the Tea Party even more visible but barely contributing anything (new) against it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 12:55
>>1
Rule 2: Power IS the source of corruption.
Rule 3: Corruption is the source of power.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 15:24
>>23
Rule 4: You can only fight corruption with power.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 15:47
>>24
Actually, you can fight corruption with indifference too but it takes a whole lot of it from the right people to work.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 17:33
>>24
You can also fight corruption with information, so:
Rule 5: Information is Power
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 20:47
>>26
Information is only power if you do something with it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 5:46
>>27
I'm tending to disagree but i'm not sure. If we were talking about money instead of information i would totaly agree with you. But I think info is quite different because sometimes people can draw power from info by hiding it. (on secnond thought this minght go for money too) Take trade secrets for example. If the information leaves the hands of the 'owner' he looses much of the power that come from withholding it.
Anyway, as i said i'm a bit confused with this and i'd love to hear other people's opinions.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 5:54
>>27
Rule 6: Information is a force multiplier, you still need control over something to begin with, if not the ability to shoot it out then some kind of economic value that would be jeopardized if ever you were to be brutalized into submission.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 18:41
Rule 7: Unite and conquer
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 18:43
Rule 34: If it exists there is politics of it. No exceptions.
RULE ONE OF MODERN POLITICS: TELL THE TRUTH AND HAVE SOME BALLS. Where else did we get Teddy Roosevelt from? Or Gandhi? Or Yuschenko in the Ukraine? A man burnt for the love of his country - THESE ARE THE TRUE HEROES.
Ahem. SO, bitches....
I'm not crazy, I'm not a troll. But, I love the Matrix, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher and Food Incorporated.
If any of you hate the corporations like Cargill, Perdue (if you speak french, this name is ironic) and the destruction that others like them are wreaking upon the earth and humanity in the name of profit, then I invite 4chan to expose them. Take the red pill, and the most rocking trip since time began.
If I have inadvertantly posted in the wrong board, please forgive me and direct me to another. This same message will appear again and again until Anonymous finds it and chooses to act. or not. I mean, it's up to them. But, if they've successfully targeted Scientology then American corporations and special interests ought to be a piece of cake.
>>44 hurr evil corporations
Real life is more complicated than a Michael Moore documentary. Most people here have alredy heard everything several times over, try coming up with something that shows a little more original thought and insights to prove you can do something other than make a fool of yourself at a g20 summit.
They should completely eliminate partisanship, go to an every-man-for-himself playing field. Voters would actually have to pay some sort of attention to who they are voting for, rather than blindly selecting all the derps on one side or the other.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-13 11:38
>>51
Isn't that called direct democracy or anarchy? Whatever you call it it sounds tons better than what we have right now.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-14 2:12
>Elect George Soros president
Why? Obama is just his puppet.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-14 10:17
>>53
If everyone saw who the real rulers are then maybe they would actually start opposing their own oppression as opposed to thinking "OBEEZY LOOK LIKE ME, HE ONE OF US, I WON'T LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVE POLITICS, STRAIGHT D TICKET EVERY 4 YEARS HERE I COME"