#971 - time To Leave Blogshares - My B$, stock, and ideas up for grabs
Sovereign Speculator bids you farewell. The annoying political tone of this site has removed the pleasures of visiting here. A last fling as I leave seems in order.

It's Over! The last of my other missions are now complete, I will soon award the prizes mentioned here and by next month I will be gone. Thanks are due to all of you for some great experiences.

(It is never too late to give a link to the BFU Journal - enjoy life.)

Teddy Roosevelt said it first, "The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day." and as you can see from this one page voter's lens, I agree.


Enter this mission by posting a statement of why neither American party represents the people. These statements will be used to decide the winners.

I will make a subjective choice; first place gets any money I have left, second place gets any chips in this mission and what I may have left, third place gets the stock and other goodies.

Then I'm Gone.

I have to wait that long so as to honor the missions that I already have running. I may not visit B$ often in the intervening months, but I will return before this mission ends.

Traditional western freedoms are being buried, even the Magna Carta is being trampled. You do have freedom options for your own life; they do not lie in politics.

If no one responds to this, I'll distribute my BS assets and stroll away. I may use some of those assets before I leave - what's left is what goes. If I get booted, you will have to trust the B$ ptb.

It was fun.

May you discover the best in your life.

Sincerely,

Allan

Sponsored by: Allan Wallace
 3 comments about this mission
Entry cost: 100 chips
Total pot: 6585 - Pot remaining: 0
Status: closed - Mission ends: 2007-06-01 00:00:00

on 05 May 2007 @ 17:09

All political parties have core supporters. The Green Party's core supporters are individuals that care deeply for the environment; the Constitution Party's core supporters are upper-class individuals that believe in rebuilding America's tax code; the Prohibition Party of the early 20th century has core support in middle-aged women who thought alcohol was a sin.

America's two-party system of Democrats and Republicans has been in its current form since the 1932 election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt after he built the "New Deal" coalition including Northern factory workers, southern white males, and African Americans. The Republican Party had its core support in the wealthy and in individuals who support limited government.

Over the course of the ensuing decades, corrupt welfare programs, wars of conscription, and outside factors such as the Cold War and globalization led to an eroding support base for the Democratic "New Deal" coalition. Labor union enrollment has been declining relative to the labor force, while the conservative southern white males are leaning more and more toward the Republican Party. However, the Republican Party has begun to appeal to a more conservative base including the "Religious Right" and "Big Business", alienating moderates that would otherwise support the Republican Party in a heartbeat.

In short, the core support for each party is small; the parties refuse to deviate much from their core supports' agendas, alienating more and more moderates. As moderates are slowly alienated out of parties, the radical core supporters become more and more important in developing the party agenda. We're left with radical Democrats and radical Republicans that can't compromise and don't really represent the laid-back American people.

Ghost on 15 Mar 2007 @ 18:20

American politics and its political party system is a captive of corporate dollars.

A few examples: The big pharmaceutical companies pump millions of dollars into political campaigns to capture the Food & Drug Administration, which in turn, operates in the best fiscal and policy interests of the corporations, not the people it was intended to protect. Defense contractors use campaign dollars to buy favor with legislators in exchange for lucrative contracts. The energy industry outright bought their way into the White House, where they literally sat down in secret meetings to write the nation’s new energy (and war?) policy. The effect upon the working people has been evident in the years since. I could go on and on … and we’ve only talked Republicans. Democrats, too, are beholden to the almighty dollar to finance their campaigns. Bill Clinton was loved and admired by the Trial Lawyers.

The only real solution – and the only real path toward a multi-party system – is publicly financed elections. For God’s sake, it is a year and a half until the next Presidential election, and we’re already in overdrive. Who’s paying for it? Americans don’t have enough attention span to order a Happy Meal, much less digest 18 months of insightful discussion of the issues that shape our lives and our children’s futures (of course, we all know it will be 18 months of mud-slinging).

A publicly-financed European model limits the campaign period to just a few weeks, it limits the dollars spent in advertising and it compels major media to broadcast the positions of the candidates. There is no need for massive infusions of dollars and therefore no need for candidates to prostitute themselves to the next deep-pocketed special interest group rolling the dice on their election. More importantly, the European model opens the way for third-, fourth and fifth-party candidates to have their ideas fairly presented to the nation. It encourages compromise and better representation of the minority.

The irony is that a shift of this magnitude would require the support of the two-party system that holds power; the same two-parties that benefit so greatly from the perversion of campaign finance.

Mikey
Ascent to Dissent (always welcome links!)
http://ascent2dissent.blogspot.com/

capnchaos on 13 Mar 2007 @ 04:14

Been a long time coming...a long time going. U R good to honor those missions already set in motion. By then, Dick Cheney Head may be dead. We may all have seen upskirts of Condi and bald-baby-dropper singing stars. That Brit movie of Duh Pres getting shot may have come true. The world as we know it will surely have changed beyond dying polar bears and freedom fries tossed from aging Stealths. Can it be more shock and awefulfilling to have neither party nor parcel 'work'? Can the Chaos always be Fresh? There's just So friggin' much Chaos and truly so little time.
Happy Trails,
capnchaos
http://www.Freshchaos.com

demonsurfer on 06 Mar 2007 @ 20:58

"why neither American party represents the people"

Need you even ask? For the most part, they're in it for the power, the money, the kickbacks, and the ego. It's the thrill of backstabbing others in a game of who can be the most manipulative group of nasty b*tches. "Represents the people"? HAHAHAHAHA, right, and you too can realize the American Dream.. hell yeah, they'll be your bestest friend if it means a vote and a campaign contribution! As to which political party, it's completely irrelevant - parties exist to provide a clear target for other parties and the rest is just rhetoric. IMHO if someone started a political party named "no confidence in any party" and put it on the ballot slip, it would win by a landslide.

Was that fun?

And yes Allan I agree, I can't stand the petty bollocks that has gone on in BS for years - I was here since pre-beta and it's been around for most of that time. I rarely play either these days, mainly for that reason. Good luck.

Libby on 03 Mar 2007 @ 21:49

Simple...

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely

Jin Jirrie on 27 Feb 2007 @ 08:34

Both major parties are beholden and enslaved to the monied grubs who put them in power, the media that massages their images and the lobbyists who besiege their offices daily. No longer servants of electors, the parties' members have formed a perfect fascist union with corporations and foreign interests.

Azly Jacaz on 19 Feb 2007 @ 12:02

Because an authoritative system acts out on the basis of what's best for the country in their own interests disregarding what matters more for their countrymen.

Git 'R Dunn on 19 Feb 2007 @ 07:35

Simon Wilder: You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
Proffesor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
Simon Wilder: Crude? No, sir. Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. The president is not an "elected king," no matter how many bombs he can drop. Because the "crude" Constitution doesn't trust him. He's just a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan? He's just a bum. ... With Honors

chris csnotlewis@gmail.com on 03 Feb 2007 @ 19:49

Ol' George Washington didn't like the idea of a two party system. He knew it'd divide the country in half...and when two halves keep going at it... nothing will get accomplished.

Fast-Forward to today, and that's what you've got. Though I truly believe a great deal of the separation is media driven as well as political.

It's only going to get crazier before 08' and I'm already tired of hearing about it.

At least, currently, I still have the freedom to turn off the tv, radio, and internet when it all starts to bug me.

May you have peace on your journey from here. I wish you the sanctuary that you seem to be striving for.

Chris

rudeshock on 03 Feb 2007 @ 07:23 Rewarded 6585 chips

The trouble with politics is that only the party out of power knows how to solve the country's problems.

Juan Vasquez on 22 Jan 2007 @ 09:46

The real reason is simple. A supreme court decision called Buckley v Valeo holding essentially that money = speech. Until we can take money out of politics no party will truly represent the people.

Shane Ede on 12 Jan 2007 @ 15:09

The basic facts of the problem lie in neither party being able to truly be of the people. Rather, they fight amongst themselves and try to further party objectives.
Further, both parties would have to cooperate in order to fix the problem and there you end up with a "Mexican Standoff" of sorts. If one begins cooperating and the other does not, then nothing still gets done while the non-cooperating party ends up gaining ground on the other.
What we should do is remove all partisan politics from the government as was the wish of the founding fathers. Perhaps without the influence of the parties, the politicians would be of and for the people.

Until then, expect nothing better than the infighting, pork-barreling, partisan bull$hit that we've seen for way too many years.

Thad Enouf on 01 Jan 2007 @ 09:09

I couldn't say it better myself:

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." - Anais Nin

"To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right." - Confucius

"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." - Edward Dowling, 1941

Charles Einarson on 31 Dec 2006 @ 14:49

The answer is a simple one as well as a sad one, early in our history the their time in power was limited. A farmer or businessman ran for office based on his plan for our future and then returned to his old life after his job was done.
Now this is a career choice that distances the official from the very people that they are supposed to help. They are richer than most, come from nicer homes and towns than most and have forgotten or never known the struggle that most of us have every day.

Ann B on 29 Dec 2006 @ 01:52

Neither party can be trusted due to the facts that both are too corrupt, and in politics for the money and power, like anywhere in the world. Politians have forgotten the TRUE reason why they are in office, "For the people, by the people". The United States was supposed to be a "role model" of true democracy, but in fact just the opposite, a "role model" of corruption and power. Basically "Corporate America" rules the country, not the average everyday common person, which is sad. What a way to destory a country. Thanks Bush.

Kevin W. on 28 Dec 2006 @ 19:55

If you want my take on why neither party represents the American people, then you're not in for a long statement. My opinions on this matter are concise.

In short, neither party represents what America wants because they're all about themselves. Show me a notable current congressperson who's actually working for the people he or she represents and I'll show you a flying pig without any mechanical assistance.

There's also the leaders of the party. Howard Dean seems dead set on hating everything about middle America and represents the worst of the Northeastern elitists. On the other hand, you've got President Bush, who's a corporate bitch.

The lawmaking process isn't as transparent as it should be, and the parties don't want it to be either. You ever wonder why they're able to put so many pork projects through? Because they intentionally make the process opaque. Government spending would be incredibly low if the American people had some kind of insight into the lawmaking process.

And that is all I have to say.

Dr. Chocolate on 17 Dec 2006 @ 12:16

Power attracts the corruptible, Allen. Its been a law of human nature since the first caveman picked up a stick and hit the caveman next to him.

Be well, Allen.

Shane Ede on 15 Dec 2006 @ 11:41

Why they are both not worth a damn? That's easy. Every last one of them is corrupt. If it's not for one reason or another, they are all corrupt. The republicans like to pretend they aren't, but they are. the dems have the media in the bag and are twice as corrupt.
Each and every election is a practice in picking the lesser of two evils and hoping you made a correct choice.

KaliTime Camaralzman on 02 Dec 2006 @ 07:38

Sorry to hear you're leaving. :-(

DataLive MatrixZ on 27 Nov 2006 @ 16:47

Bush and the Bilderbergers Secret Meetings
by Freedom Fans


Do you wonder why leaders lie and change what little is left of their minds.

Bush decides to be an average, yet rich, slightly inebriated Texan or to be a King, at Sintra Portugal in 1999 and at Chateau Du Lac Hotel, Genval, Brussels (9 miles south of the Brussels, Belgium airport) in 2000

Bush like a lamb learns that there is no real freedom, and realizes, accepting he is subject to the Global elite like other Presidents before him.

In fact, the propaganda machine had already started (1999). Bilderberger Bill Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, had his editor Fred Barnes write a glowing report of Bush Jr. as "The Heavyweight." This puff piece on behalf of the Texas governor, to establish him as a primary contender for president in the next election.

A Public call to action to bring an issue to light.

What is bush, the Governor of Texas doing at a super-secret elite meeting of the Western world's central bankers, defence experts, press barons, royalty, prime ministers, international financiers, secretive industrialists and government officials?

"Bilderberg takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by many leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period "Source: http://www.bilderberg.org/index.htm

The 1999 guest list includes names such as David Rockefeller Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee, Henry Kissinger, Paul A. Allaire Chairman, Xerox Corporation, Evan Bayh Senator (Democrat, Indiana), Charles G. Boyd Executive Director, National Security Study Group, Jon S. Corzine Retired Senior Partner, Goldman Sachs & Co. Christopher J. Dodd Senator (Democrat, Connecticut), Thomas E. Donilon Attorney-at-Law, O'Melveney & Meyers, Martin S. Feldstein President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research, Richard C. Holbrooke Ambassador to the UN designate, Jessica T. Mathews President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, William J. McDonough President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Richard A. McGinn Chairman and CEO, Lucent Technologies, Bill Richardson Secretary of Energy, Robert B. Shapiro Chairman and CEO, Monsanto Company and a host of other bankers, corporate heads and royalty.



Other past Leader/participants, as shown in the guest lists posted at http://www.bilderberg.org, have included many of the powerful men you know so well. The 2006 guest list here!

Pepe Escobar's article for the Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html highlights several important points concerning the elite group. Specifically, they do not invite leaders from Latin America, the Middle East or Asia.

The Bilderberg meetings are a king-making process, as Bush SR/JR, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, and even Stephen Harper the Canadian Prime Minister, showed themselves at the annual meetings in the years leading up to their elections. Escobar also suggests that the Bilderberg meeting is where the G8 agenda is formulated; hence, the G8 is turned merely into a rubber-stamping mechanism for policy formed by individuals meeting in the capacities of private persons. If this is the case, then protestors are railing against a dead duck.

Several Canadians who have attended in the past include Ralph Klein, Preston Manning, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Klein's attendance was reported in the May 29, 1995 issue of the Report http://www.bilderberg.org/cocktail.htm [One can only speculate that Harper's appearance has been due in part to his pro-war stance, a reward from Conrad Black or other Neo-conservatives in Washington.]

These meetings are suffering an almost absolute blackout in the US presses, as the editors and owners of all "Big Media" all have affiliations with this secretive group. Part of the problem is that, in order to gain admission to the club, one has to pledge secrecy and allegiance.

Most Americans have never heard of the Bilderberg group, let alone realize the significance of Mr. Bush's attendance at the meeting. For good background reading, please see http://www.bilderberg.org/index.htm

Perhaps the global elite have their bets placed on a sharp 'right' turn in the upcoming federal election. Matrixz DataLive[/url]

j mcgready on 27 Nov 2006 @ 00:38

Speaking as someone who voted for as many
Libertarian candidates as stood for office in my state,
I say that neither of the two main parties can be trusted.

Both hail from the same monolithic elite institutions -
private schools, Ivies and/or Law Schools. Both treat
the "electorate" with the contempt learned in the aforementioned institutions.

The parties have adopted an evolutionarily stable strategy
of switching control every decade or so to keep all talk of
fomenting revolt just that - talk.

Words are all they have, and since most representatives and senators are (or were trained to be) lawyers, words are all they need to hector any malcontent into a forced docility.

Moreover, it's become a just a job to them -
another step on the political career ladder,
and not the final step either - lucrative speaking
engagements, consulting work, and all manners of other
opportunities should they leave while collecting a pension
for a few terms' worth of work.

everyone is too invested in the status quo.

Anne Smallshock on 22 Nov 2006 @ 16:19

That's so sad! You sound really down.
I hope you will be fine and well,
Anne
I guess this will cost me but I don't care.
Anne SmallShock
ID# 38319