I feel obligated to mention that 6 of the 7 Ohio Supreme Court Justices are Republicans.

I guess Ohio is trying to one up Arizona in who can most rapidly turn their state into an unconstitutional police state.

>> ^NetRunner:

I feel obligated to mention that 6 of the 7 Ohio Supreme Court Justices are Republicans.
I guess Ohio is trying to one up Arizona in who can most rapidly turn their state into an unconstitutional police state.


Ultra Conservatism is the exact same as Statism. Neither are good for the people, and neither understand the weight of their actions. This is not a case for partisan politics but of a corrupt system in general. A corrupt system that does not have the people's best interests at heart.

There is case law stating that an officer cannot guess the speed of a vehicle from hearing the sound of the engine. How is that any different than this? How a judge can ignore that appellate decision is beyond me. The whole idea of case law is so that judges don't redundantly go over sections of law continually. I'm referring to Ohio vs Freitag. Holy shit! Ohio? That's surreal.

I don't know what happened to the Republic but it sure missed the mark.

And what does this mean? You don't have to do the crime to do the time.

America, fuck yeah.

Why not? These people don't need evidence to prove "god" exists. It's like me stating they're assholes when I have no ev.......oh wait, I *DO* have evidence!

Thankfully one of those states that really don't matter.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Ultra Conservatism is the exact same as Statism. Neither are good for the people, and neither understand the weight of their actions. This is not a case for partisan politics but of a corrupt system in general. A corrupt system that does not have the people's best interests at heart.

Actually, false moral equivalency is worse than puppy waterboarding and pelican oiling. Refusing to assign blame to the actual people who are corrupt in the system is part of why the "system" gets corrupted. Everyone is to blame, therefore no one is to blame.

Republicans have been behind every single major bad thing government has done in my lifetime. The worst you can really accuse the Democrats of is that they've been too willing to go along with Republican schemes over the last 4 decades, and have only halfheartedly fought for what they supposedly believe in.

Harry Truman nailed this 62 years ago:

"I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you
find out who's hitting you? It's about time that the people of America
realized what the Republicans have been doing to them."

- Harry Truman

Part of the problem is also what's conventionally known as "conservatism". They tell us over and over again that you can't expect the government to do anything but sell out to big business, and oh by the way, selling out to big business is actually awesome for the little guy anyways. Everyone is systematically told that they shouldn't expect better from their government, and as a result people don't demand better from their government, and since they don't demand better, they don't get better, and you get America circa 1929 2010.

Haha! Way to go statist idiots!

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I'm referring to a system that lends itself to corruption. See Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect.

Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party. How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees? Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.

Crazy people against the Federal Reserve / WTO / IMF system??

Are you fucking insane??

Imagine if we had a gold standard and actual secured and backed monetary policy?
We wouldn't all be poor in a few years. Everyone is going to get fucked over hard by IMF and central banks, learn history and how the Great Depression was made 10x worse by this magical bank of yours.

Our govt doesn't even have any oversight over the federal reserve or their decisions and you might want to google and find out what country the Fed actual resides in.

@joedirt, yes, you're fucking insane.

You also need to "learn history" -- to the degree that the Fed made things worse, it was because they listened to the goldbugs and tightened the money supply during a steep recession so as to not jeopardize their adherence to the gold standard. The result was massive unemployment that lasted for a long time, and it didn't get better until they ditched the gold standard (though most returned to it in the 40's under Bretton Woods, only to leave it again in the 70's).

I totally agree that the Fed should be a little less independent, and a little more subjected to public review, ditto with the IMF (though their actions seem fairly public already), but wanting a return to a gold standard is nonsense teabagger craziness, especially if you're coming at it from a progressive point of view.