[Nameplate] Fair ~ 73°F  
High: 81°F ~ Low: 59°F
Thursday, July 24, 2014

The Republican Political Machine: Trickle Down Fascism? Part II

Posted Sunday, May 8, 2011, at 2:00 PM

Hello again, everyone. I'd like to make this blog short and sweet. I plan on turning this discussion into a series of short posts regarding the Republican policy of eliminating political adversaries through the use of the justice department and Bush administration appointed prosecutors and federal judges.

So, let me ask a question. Which of the following crimes is worse? A high-profile politician engaging in immoral sexual activity with a prostitute (with their own money, not the money of tax payers) OR the fraud of securities by high-profile Wall Street CEOs and other financial figures that essentially robbed millions of dollars from honest, hard-working citizens of their investment money?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

The latter, of course! But, sin is sin in God's eyes, and the plutocrats of both parties (Sadducee Democratic & Pharisee Republican) are thieves. I hope you'll expose the sins of both! Actually, I love your thought provoking blog entries! Whether we agree or disagree, you make us think, and I've told you that before. Sorry for being repetitive, goat lady :).

-- Posted by swift on Mon, May 9, 2011, at 3:21 PM

The hiring of a prostitute is illegal and immoral, among other things, but both parties are aware of the choices they have made. When hard-working people are robbed by corporations that have been entrusted with their money, that is thievery and there is no excuse for it.

-- Posted by GONENOW on Mon, May 9, 2011, at 3:44 PM

Being a historian you realize that political corruption does not have party lines. I believe that President Clinton's primary issue was lying under oath. If a U.S. President is not truthful under oath that might raise other serious questions about Whitewater, Filegate, Wampumgate, and Travelgate. Republican politicians and Democrat politicians are just that; politicians. It seems we are forced to consider who might be less "corrupt" than the other when deciding on who we should vote for.

Who would you rather have as senator: a man who gets drunk, wrecks car, leaves dying passenger; or a senator who steals money....both are wrong, both should not hold their position in office.

-- Posted by mobrigade on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 11:40 AM

Mobrigade is right on target. It seems that politicians become more corrupt the longer they stay in office. Corruption breeds corruption. Everyone knows that the politicians in Washington D.C. have NO intention on really cutting the deficit or balancing the budget. Once the Tea-party endorsed candidates were elected and sworn into office, they began to show their true colors. They are nothing more than just more of the same. It has been rightly observed that the two major parties are two wings of the same dirty plutocrat bird.

-- Posted by swift on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 3:31 PM

I guess in the views of Actually hiring a prostitute is fine as long as it isnt with "our"money. As with most Democrats no morals unless it comes to their money. Lets see Mr.Clinton while in office cheated on his wife IN the oval office then lied under oath.But the economy was getting better so they were ok with his morals as long as the money was coming in. Once again trading morals and values for the almighty dollar. I want morally responsible people dealing with my tax dollars.People with values and a sense of respect for the job that they hold remembering how they got there and how fast it could be taken away. I would be so bold as to say that if the person had hired a prostitute and used tax payer dollars to pay, Actually would have been ****** and not even mention that it is illegal to begin with. Proud to live in a country where I can say how I feel and the only repercussions ill get is a tounge lashing from Actually and considering the source isnt so bad at all.

-- Posted by usedtoliveindexter on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 11:27 PM

Actually, I did not have Bill Clinton in mind at all with this post. Look for my next blog in a day or two to see who I am speaking of. Just to clarify, Clinton did not hire a prostitute. I am not asking about sexual misconduct in general. I am asking about the specific act of hiring a prostitute. In my next blog I'll try to show examples of the activity by members of both parties, and then evaluate the legal consequences for these political figures that took place under the Bush administration. I want to do this so I can help readers understand what exactly they are getting when voting for the Republican party (that being corruption at the highest level). I believe you'll see a stark difference in the handling of Democratic misconduct versus that of the majority power at the time (the Republican party) in their moral misgivings.

Furthermore, please allow me to define fascism at this time: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Again, the purpose of this series of blogs is to shed light on the political hits that the Republican party issued and carried through the justice department.

However, to those who choose to discuss Clinton, I ask you this: is he no worse than Newt Gingrich? Newt, the leader of the lynch mob that hunted Clinton AND a potential presidential candidate in 2012 was having an affair while he persecuted Clinton for the same activity. However, if choosing to remember Clinton for his sexual misgivings and not his surplus budget helps the right sleep at night, I suppose I understand. I know the sour grapes over the bin Laden death are still lingering.

I'll try to post the next part soon!

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Actually on Wed, May 11, 2011, at 12:22 PM

The odd part of your opening comment is that you give the impression that the Wall Street fat cats are lining republican pockets, or at least that the Dems are fighting the good fight against them. Just a few minutes and a couple of clicks will show you that Republicans get a good deal of help from Wall Street, BUT not as much help (read help as $$) as the dems. Cronyism and bad politics reaches across the aisle.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/polit...

http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select...

Also, you can define fascism however your like, but a better, less slanted definition may be . . .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

-- Posted by Zam on Wed, May 11, 2011, at 10:05 PM

Again, my point is not that Republicans are worse or better, but that they are just as corrupt as their Democratic foes. The fact that you point out that because Clinton made you sleep better because of his surplus budget, irregardless of his personal life reveals your devotion to the party apart from their personal life.

Research these Democrats: George Wallace-segregation forever. FDR-Japanese Internment camps, Hugo Black; senator from Alabama-member of KKK, Senator Robert W. Byrd-kleagle rank in Klan that pushed "traditional American values." The list will go on and on. I would not, however, lump them in the same boat as Mussolini's fascist ideology....why because it does not apply, just as your watered down Google quick search of the word does not fully explain the true meaning of the word. Bush and Republicans do not practice fascism and saying they do, to me, hurts your credibility.

I suppose after we uncover the girth of corruption among Republicans and big business, we'll take a look at Democrats and racism....maybe then we can compare fascism and the Democratic Party's history of authoritarian rule over minorities in the South.

I am sick of modern interpretations applying historical terms without regard to the context in which they were created. Mussolini developed fascism as a name and symbol of his sick authoritarian government. Before you apply your label, please understand the context of its meaning. Grandpa fought against National Socialism and Fascism during WWII in Italy, a Republican since Eisenhower, he finds your application of fascism and the Republican Party ridiculous...but then again, he saw fascism first hand, what does he know?

Believe it or not, I am not a Republican...I believe they are corrupt beyond recognition, I also believe they are as bad as the Democrats...if anything, I lean more toward Ron Paul, just saying.:-)

-- Posted by mobrigade on Thu, May 12, 2011, at 4:24 PM

Thankyou, Zam! Partisans fail to see their hypocrisy. As stated earlier (sorry goatlady for being repititious), both parties are run by plutocrats. Both parties are financed by plutocrats. The left hates folks like Zam and mobrigade. Mobrigade is right: "maybe then we can compare fascism and the Democratic Party's history of authoritarian rule over minorities in the South." The Democratic Party is all about controlling the sheeple politically. the party does it by demonizing those the party disagrees with. Examples: Tell the American sheeple that all Republicans are racist, tell them that the Democratic Party is for the working class, tell them that the government programs put in place by Democrats have eliminated poverty, blame all problems on Republicans. The Republican Party plutocrats are all about economic control. Examples: Subsidize big corporation farms, borrow and spend and blame it on Democrats.

The real issue should be the deficit and the 14 plus trillion dollar debt. 14 Trillion is 14,000 billion. The Republican Congress wants to save 38 Billion dollars. 38 billion compared to 14,000 billion is like saying cutting 38 dollars is going to help bring down 14,000 dollars in debt! Really? And how about that 21 Billion dollars over a ten year period the Demos want to save to help solve the 14,000 Billion dollar debt? That's even more laughable!

-- Posted by swift on Thu, May 12, 2011, at 4:57 PM

I post the following with the hope my liberal friends will watch it. I really doubt they will because they are so intellectually superior to the rest of us. But here goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwa...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

This is long but shows the deception of Barak Obama and his New World Order connections. And it's not kind to G.W.Bush either! Watch with an open mind.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:59 PM

MoBrigade,

Funny you should mention Ron Paul. Ron Paul is still a Libertarian, regardless of the current letter next to his name. IMHO, the GOP will become VERY nervous if Ron Paul's numbers increase. He is a problem for them (the party machine), and I'm not sure that he get their support even if he were nominated. The one thing the Democrat and Republican elite hate worse than each other is the mere thought of a third party, and Ron Paul is the third party.

BTW, I voted for Ron Paul as a Libertarian, and would certainly consider voting for him again. I think "throwing away my vote" in 1988 is finally paying off.

-- Posted by Zam on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 10:11 PM

Thanks for the responses. I've been busy, but should try to get around to catching up today or tomorrow. I just wanted to say one thing to Zam. I'm not trying to really make any statement about either party taking money from Wall Street. I'm talking more about the one-party control/fascist political tactics used by the Bush II administration. I will try to make myself more clear later, though!

Thanks again.

-- Posted by Actually on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 8:02 AM

I supported Ron Paul in his primary run for '08. Even had a yard sign for him, but then we moved from Bloomfield here to Dexter Dec. '7 and didn't take his yard sign with me.

Paul is running this time around. Got an email from his campaign. He's a Libertarian Populist in the Republican Party, which makes it interesting since I'm a Prohibitionist Populist member of the Stoddard county Republican Club. Ron Paul started the Tea Party Movement in '07. Neo-Cons have high jacked the Tea Party Movement but there is still a Campaign for Liberty. I really don't want to have to vote Constitution Party in '12 but will if I have to.

-- Posted by swift on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 10:27 AM

Actually, I think that we may agree on something, and that is the fear of one party control. Where I assume we may disagree is my growing fear that the Democrat and Republican parties in are in essence operating as one party with one-party control. Both sides seem to be favor a certain path, but both paths lead to the same end: larger and more omnipresent federal government.

-- Posted by Zam on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 8:27 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Knowledge equals freedom!