The Big Change Lie

[Arne]

The Big Lie About Change

by Jim Quinn

The big lie about change is that neither party wants to change anything. The Democrats and Republicans love their power, influence, and wealth. The two parties always agree when it involves tax rebates and pork projects for their constituents. They have no problem spending our grandchildren’s money to get re-elected in November. No politician is willing to tell the American people the blunt truth that we have an epic financial crisis that must be addressed in the next 10 years. The media spends weeks discussing lipstick, bulldogs, pigs, and hockey moms. We are wasting precious time. Our society is dominated by present self-interest to the detriment of the best interests of our future generations. We need leaders who are willing to speak the truth and convince the country to change course before it is too late.

Our fiscal crisis is complex, multi-faceted and dangerous to our long-term future. The major issues that we need to confront include the current fiscal situation, the colossal amount of unfunded liabilities that our politicians have obligated us to pay, our dependence on foreign oil, our failing education system, and a dearth of leadership and political courage. To successfully solve these issues we need to ignore political affiliations and choose the best solutions. Both candidates promise tax cuts, when the United States has no money. We are broke. The money that our politician leaders will use for tax cuts or new government programs will be borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia, with the bill being passed on to future generations.

By far, the greatest challenge that we must overcome is the entrenched ruling elite that run this country. The ruling elite includes the crooked politicians in Washington, the lifetime bureaucrats who run the various governmental agencies, the paid lobbyists who write the laws for Congress, obscenely overpaid short-term profit-driven corporate CEOs, media conglomerates, and the privileged Wall Street aristocracy. These privileged few are surrounded by leeches and parasites (media consultants, pollsters, spin artists, and PR agencies) that attack anyone who threatens their position of power. The only way to overturn their comfortable world is an uprising among the masses.

Ron Paul, the only candidate during the Presidential primaries to tell the American people the truth, has articulated the 1st step in taking this country back from the entrenched political establishment:

"Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance. The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues. Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage."

The message that needs to be sent is a rejection of the two-party system. On November 4, 2008 vote for the 3rd-party candidate of your choice. Send a message to the ruling elite.

September 16, 2008

Jim Quinn [send him mail] is Senior Director of Strategic Planning, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. This article reflects the personal views of Jim Quinn. It does not necessarily represent the views of his employer, and is not sponsored or endorsed by them

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/quinn7.html


This reminds me of this:
http://originals.msn.com/republicrats/

[Mavdog]

hey jim...there is a choice of the kind of "change" you seem to believe isn't out there...

there is the constitution party.

the green party.

the libertarian party.

the american/american first party.

the american nazi party.

communist party usa.

democratic socialist party.

it is just that american voters don't want these parties, do not accept the message they put forth. there is no "distraction", and there is no "pretend democratic process".

it's called rejection.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hey jim...there is a choice of the kind of "change" you seem to believe isn't out there...

there is the constitution party.

the green party.

the libertarian party.

the american/american first party.

the american nazi party.

communist party usa.

democratic socialist party.

it is just that american voters don't want these parties, do not accept the message they put forth. there is no "distraction", and there is no "pretend democratic process".

it's called rejection.

Independent candidates are not allowed to enter the election because they've got to be billionairs in order to get through the regulation. They're not allowed to be in the debates, because the debates are brokered between the two major parties.

What do you think the name recognition for the candidate from the constitution party is?

If you have that type of a system, a third party vote will change more than a vote for any lesser of the two evils. Evil remains evil, after all.

[Mavdog]

not true arne, these independent parties can get on the ballots, and if they pull a certain % of the polls (5% I recall) they are included in the debates. the debates aren't run by the government but by private orgs such as league fo women voters. currently the debates are run by the two parties, but that should revert to an independent group in 2012.

the public doesn't accept the message of these fringe parties. there is no prohibition against these parties getting their message out, and with the net it's easy to do just that.

it's just the message doesn't resonate. it's rejected.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not true arne, these independent parties can get on the ballots, and if they pull a certain % of the polls (5% I recall) they are included in the debates. the debates aren't run by the government but by private orgs such as league fo women voters. currently the debates are run by the two parties, but that should revert to an independent group in 2012.

the public doesn't accept the message of these fringe parties. there is no prohibition against these parties getting their message out, and with the net it's easy to do just that.

it's just the message doesn't resonate. it's rejected.

Oh so the debates aren't run by the government but by private orgs, well not exactly at the moment they are run by the two parties which represent what... OH the GOVERNMENT. When did they got their hands on the debates? OH when Ross Perot had a right on millions of dollars in taxpayer money, because he got nearly a fifth of the American publics vote. By the way, how could he do that? Ofcourse it had NOTHING to do with all his money...

Now explain to me how these candidates are supposed to get 5% if they're not in the debates?

But CLEARLY, the system is not biased against independents...

[Mavdog]

no, the debates stopped being run by the lwv in 1988, which was before perot's run.

perot was in the 1992 debates, because he broached the 5% threshold.

the independent parties get to 5% by having a messsage that the voters believe in and accept.

but the public isn't accepting these parties and their message, the public is rejecting the parties and their message.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

but the public isn't accepting these parties and their message, the public is rejecting the parties and their message.

I have to fact check the WLV thing. But how can you say that the public rejects these parties if they don't even recognize the names of their candidates?

[mary]

I'm not sure an 8-10 person presidential debate is going to garnish alot of name recognition for a bunch of unknown candidates.

If you're relying on late-season debates for public exposure, then you're pretty much screwed anyway, right?

Didn't Ross Perot buy a bunch of infomercials or somesuch?