Admit the Obama administration and Democrats are full of shit and the Tea Party and Republicans are dangerous and stupid

Submitted by Norm Roulet on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:32.

My thoughts exactly... but then I'm not paid to pimp for Democrats or Republicans... I DID SOMETHING TO MAKE CHANGE HAPPEN INSTEAD, FOR FREE... FOR FREEDOM - REALNEO.US

What to do if you’re courageous enough to admit the Obama administration and Democrats are full of shit and the Tea Party and Republicans are dangerous and stupid?

  When it comes to the treatment of big business, we can’t tell the difference, either

President Barack Obama soared into the public consciousness with a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He then took Howard Dean’s example and used the power of the Internet to create a fundraising juggernaut for his historic 2008 Presidential run. With a swiftness not seen since JFK’s political ascendancy, Obama became president and claimed broad power to affect “change” across the country. But Kennedy only had to surmount his Irish Catholic background — Barack Obama had to transcend the fact that he is African-American.

But appearances are, in the final analysis, immaterial. Just as a magician uses scenery and sleight-of-hand to divert the audience’s attention, Barack Obama has used his background, intellect, perceived worldliness and powers of speech to distort the reality field, as I call it (to repurpose Steve Jobs’ “reality-distortion field”).  To get Americans thinking about a certain reality, while another is at work behind the scenes.

Maybe you — an Obama voter — have asked yourself, “What happened to the man for whom I voted?” I would argue nothing. Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama is a masterful political manipulator.  And if one is able to let dissolve mental distinctions of party — Democrat, Republican — then Obama can be seen for what he really is: a trojan horse.

I am not a religious man. I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat. A Jeffersonian Democrat might be more on point. But labels are so inelegant and ultimately rather pointless. And, I must admit, I erred most spectacularly in my vote for Barack Obama. There I sat front and center in the Obama Magic Show: my reason lobotomized by my desire—no, need—to see a man of great intellect inhabit the office after the devolutionary presidency of George W. Bush.

This was Obama’s greatest trick: the lobotomization of man’s capacity to reason. The wolf hadn’t come in sheep’s clothing — he’d used the alchemy of television and print to transmogrify himself into a saint. All were not fooled by the illusionist, however; but just enough were dazzled in the end to give Obama the presidency and the Democrats control of Congress, where they continued the Bush policy of caving to corporate masters and of American political and economic hegemony.

The Koch Brothers-funded Tea Party reactionaries, however, aren’t as into illusion as Obama and the Democrats, unless of course you examine the sugar daddies behind the Tea Party apparatus, flush with corporate dollars. Look into Robert Rowling and Trever Rees-Jones of American Crossroads (a 527 organization led by Karl Rove), or more prominently Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, his perpetual motion machine of corporate pitch men.

The answer for them is limited government but robust national defense policy. Translation: unimpeded corporate dominance in the U.S. economy and muscular foreign policy in the Reagan and Bush 43 tradition, which will benefit defense contractors. Two different but ultimately convergent streams to enrich corporate entities. The openness of this method is startling in its brazenness.

The Tea Party has some sensible ideas in the limited government platform, but the reality of their vision would be an approximation of the Reagan and Bush presidencies: secrecy, hawkish military maneuvering, corporate welfare, rapacious capitalism and so forth. That is the endpoint of the limited government espoused by the Tea Party reactionaries. Defense contractors and corporations benefit markedly, and maybe some benefit will be seen elsewhere, but certainly not in middle-class bank accounts. Limited government, in fact, is devoid of meaning because the master remains the same: big business.

President Obama revealed his true colors when he had a unique moment in American history to effectively punish Wall Street and the banking system that brought the nation and the world to its knees, but did not. Wall Street’s banks went unpunished. Why? Obama’s economic team, populated by ex-Goldman Sachs bankers, continues to let the Federal Reserve act as Wall Street’s visible hand in the nation and world’s economy. What, I ask, has really changed from President Bush’s presidency to Obama’s?

Barack Obama the messenger

Obama’s pulling the military out of Iraq finally (though advisors will remain) but escalating our Afghan campaign. He lords over the largest intelligence services in the world in the CIA and NSA, who continue their culture of violating civil liberties. And Obama will be given the power to essentially “kill” the internet by way of the Senator Joseph Lieberman-sponsored “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA).”  The bill would allow the President to shut down all or portions of the internet in the event of a cyber attack, but this is all scenery because the potentialities of such power should be downright frightening to all Americans.

In the event that our government becomes outwardly oppressive in the future — a fundamentalist, crusading religious state, for example — the President would be able to shut down the Internet. The President, in effect, would be able to effectively control the flow of information; control the message in any critical moment; dissent would be crippled; mobilization of protests eliminated, or at least rendered more manageable. It would make a mockery of the American right of free speech and assembly, and mark us as no freer than the Chinese people.

And, as Dylan Ratigan noted last week with his well-articulated rant on “Morning Joe,” Obama is maintaining the U.S. policy of not going after the source of radical Islamic terrorism–Saudi Arabian funding of Wahabi schools.  Schools that gave birth to the men who have visited terror on the U.S. and the world for decades now, including the 9/11 attacks.

What is an informed voter to do when presented with the illusionary tactics of Obama and the Democrats and the oligarchical platform of the Tea Party Republicans?

I might be courting controversy here, but it occurs to me the only gesture that makes any sense is: Don’t vote.

Voting in past elections has continually given us two options — one  found in the open contempt for common people (Republicans) and the other in the two-faced champion of the people (Democrats).

Your vote tethers you to the machine. It absorbs the last bit of freedom you possess: the freedom to resist your ownership by the mechanisms of power.  We can never fully escape the political reality that a minority, cloaked in the illusion of majority rule (Democrats or Republicans), manages our lives in one form or another from the moment of our birth to our very last breath.

Vote and you endorse one unfair political system over another. You legitimize its existence. You may vote for Democrats in the mid-terms because you don’t want to hand power over to the Tea Party reactionaries (a legitimate concern), but you are endorsing an apparatus (the Democratic party) that is still dominated by big business.

Do not let others saddle you with guilt for exercising your right of refusal. Instead of voting, why not take a more direct path of action in your community by volunteering your time by helping a literacy organization, for instance. Teach creative writing so a generation will rise who can speak truth to power. Educate others about the real stories behind history that our education system cannot and will not (by government sanction) teach.  Volunteer your time at a food pantry. Work for lower rent in your neighborhood, like James Sullivan would have you do. Organize with others to combat racial or other social injustices in your neighborhood.

As Professor Brian Martin of University of Wollongong, Australia, writes:

“[T]he founding of the modern state a few centuries ago was met with great resistance: people would refuse to pay taxes, to be conscripted or to obey laws passed by national governments. The introduction of voting and the expanded suffrage have greatly aided the expansion of state power. Rather than seeing the system as one of ruler and ruled, people see at least the possibility of using state power to serve themselves. As electoral participation has increased, the degree of resistance to taxation, military service, and the immense variety of laws regulating behaviour, has been greatly attenuated.”

You could engage in the bi-annual tradition of trolling the internet for voting locations by zipcode, pulling the lever, and waiting idly for the nation to change. But there are other ways of exercising your civic duty to your fellow citizens.

Don’t vote. Do something.

a stunning form of civic espionage

To those who have given their hearts, minds, schedules, contacts, messages, children's photos and locations, political and social viewpoints, credentials, networks, friends, futures and dreams up to the weak, stolen code of Facebook...

Facebook Guilts Users With ‘I Voted’ Button

By DJ Pangburn Tuesday, November 02, 2010


Facebook’s misguided ‘I Voted’ button lets everyone know just who voted and who did not—a stunning form of civic espionage.

When you log on to your Facebook account today, you will be confronted with dozens of digital proclamations flooding in from your friends, family and colleagues that they’ve voted and are damned pleased with themselves for exercising their civic duty.  At least they believe it is their civic duty because they’ve been told so from a very young age, being reinforced constantly by others, including, now, Facebook.

The right to vote, however, is a right, not a duty.  It is an external expression of a belief in a candidate, an ideology or ballot measure—at least that is what it was intended to be.  Now it is merely an expression of a mass delusion that the political system is technically functional at best.

Facebook probably had the best of intentions when creating the ‘I Voted’ button—a simple desire to connect voters in an intimate albeit digital way for the midterm elections—to expand their database of social connections.  Perhaps they should have thought of the various ways in which it is a bad idea.  Let us count the ways:

What if a person (let’s not use the word ‘voter’) doesn’t feel represented by the field of candidates?  We know that the usual choices are either Republican or Democrat, and we know there are nominal third-party candidates in various districts, but many people don’t identify with any of them.  These people won’t be voting.  And if a person’s ideology means they won’t be voting, how does the ‘I Voted’ button truly represent them as a person?  And doesn’t the button create a mechanism for those who did vote to guilt others on election day?

What of all the people who believe the two-party system is a sleight-of-hand that allows power structures to exist relatively risk-free while citizens argue over partisan issues, losing themselves in one grand diversionary tactic?  For these people, an “I Voted” declaration is as meaningless as it is insulting.  The choice is either a Republican or Democrat, maybe a Green or Reform party candidate.  But, the majority of people vote for either Republicans or Democrat, so the “I Voted” button signifies that a Facebook user has voted to maintain the system—broken as it is.

If Facebook truly wanted to connect all of its users, they might have considered contacting me first.  I would have offered the following lists of possible buttons to satisfy the range of political opinions:

“I Didn’t Vote”

“I Didn’t Vote, Fuck You”

“Ask Me Why I Didn’t Vote’

“Goldman Sachs Didn’t Get My Vote, How Bout You?”

“Tell Me, How Have Your Past Votes Worked Out for You?”

“Sittin’ This One Out, Folks”

“I Don’t Need a Representative to Create Change in My Community”

“I Voted for Change in 2008 and Wall Street Walked Free”

For all the noise Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have made about not wanting to hand their creation over to the old boys’ club, they’ve certainly played right into their hands by reinforcing the status quo.

How you conduct yourself on election day is nobody’s business but your own.

Disrupt IT

It is a right, not an obligation, that we can agree on...

But, it is the only thing that I agree with from your post. How we can conduct ourselves on election day is our own business but whether I share the fact that I voted or I choose not to share this info on FB, doesn't change that. Even if I don't click to say I voted today, doesn't mean that I didn't vote. It just simply means that I didn't click the button. I also vote in elections in which I don't feel completely represented because there are always some things that I feel are redeeming about most candidates. I also can choose to only vote in one election and not for each one in my district. Today I choose to vote in the Cuyahoga County Executive position but I will not be voting on a couple of others. There are always things that I don't agree with when it comes to certain candidates. But that is what makes us a great country. There are never two people that are alike. I don't feel that when I vote for someone that I don't agree with 100% of the time means that I am maintaining the status quo in our flawed system. Change on this type of magnitude comes slowly. If we all decided not to go out and vote at all, what does this accomplish? Is the government going to suddenly change? Really, think about what you are saying.

As far as FB goes, you can say in your status any one of those choice quotes that you have suggested above. And just because Mark Zuckerberg and FB have chosen to include an "I Voted" button today, does not mean that by clicking on it one has reinforced the status quo. How does this maintain the status quo? How does not voting help the alleged cause of trying to bring about change to the status quo of our broken system? You may have some great points if only you could back them up with information, facts or some kind opinion of why you say the things you say. I personally do not feel guilted into voting by simply having the choice to click or not click on an "I Voted" button on FB. Seriously? If you do, then the system isn't flawed, you are!

I suggest using Facebook to hot or not and that is it

I suggest using Facebook to hot or not and that is it

If McDonalds scours your data from Facebook and determines you voted for an Independent, you ain't hired.

Disrupt IT

For example, Facebook knows when you'll break up

For example, Facebook knows when you'll break up


This chart tracks relationship trouble via Facebook status updates, which show a spike of breakups in the spring.

This chart tracks relationship trouble via Facebook status updates, which show a spike of breakups in the spring.

  • Facebook graph shows when people are most likely to breakup
  • Journalist David McCandless scraped 10,000 status updates for words "break up" or "broken up"
  • Spring and pre-Christmas are most treacherous; Christmas Day the safest
  • (CNN) -- Worried about when you might get dumped? Facebook knows.

    That's according to a graphic making the rounds online that uses Facebook status updates to chart what time of year people are splitting up.

    British journalist and graphic designer David McCandless, who specializes in showcasing data in visual ways, compiled the chart. He showed off the graphic at a TED conference last July in Oxford, England.

    In the talk, McCandless said he and a colleague scraped 10,000 Facebook status updates for the phrases "breakup" and "broken up."

    They found two big spikes on the calendar for breakups. The first was after Valentine's Day -- that holiday has a way of defining relationships, for better or worse -- and in the weeks leading up to spring break. Maybe spring fever makes people restless, or maybe college students just don't want to be tied down when they're partying in Cancun.

    And let's hear it for cheapskates. The other big romantically treacherous time, according to the graph, is about two weeks before Christmas -- presumably as people begin pricing gifts for their significant others.

    Mondays, as if they weren't bad enough, are the most likely day to break up. Summer and fall look like the safest seasons.

    And, possibly showing that some people's sense of humor is more twisted than others, there's a spike in breakups on April Fool's Day.

    What single day are you least likely to get a "Dear John (or Jane)" letter?

    "Christmas Day," McCandless said. "Who would do that?"

    Disrupt IT

    Counting my blessings this election cycle...

    Counting my blessings this election cycle...

    1. I don't have a TV so I don't see any fucking political ads

    2. I don't listen to commercial radio so I didn't hear any fucking political ads

    3. I don't have a known phone number so didn't get any robocalls

    4. I don't read the print newspapar so am able to easily ignore all fucking political print advertising

    5. I immediately recycle all junk mail so can easily ignore all fucking political ads

    6. All the local politicians know I think they are scum so they leave me the fuck alone

    Fucking politics in America in the 21st Century sucks

    Disrupt IT

    My real satisfaction in voting was writing in Brunner for Senate

    My real satisfaction in voting was writing in Brunner for Senate.

    And Don, you got our vote here in EC for CE - good luck!

    Had to vote for Democrats over Republicans in the core state government Administrative positions... those can't get entrusted to Republicans, like with that Blackwell psycho (good work Brunner straightening that office up)

    Green Gov vote is nice (not likely to win... this year)

    Not much else worth voting for... but we voted for who we at all trust (lots of blanks on my ballot).

    My right.

    Disrupt IT

    the feeling that rich or 'tea bag' ugh

    are people that are to be disliked, is what I get from reading some posts here on realneo.

    Why some even insult groups by calling them 'tea baggers' when it reeks of such a name, but they get away with it -because they can.


    Kicking out the international bankers and private federal reserve out of the country, would be a great start. Our system of government is corrupt. That is what they (us) all need to work toward changing.


    Go here and make a start in learning


    it is not one side vs the other, it is teamwork and knowing your rights, because, when you do not know this, you have no rights and freedom as we know it is doomed. Our state of affairs, (see Betty


    The problem is, America is NOT a Democracy - it is a Republic! As our Founding Fathers established, can we keep it?