In reality, it's not Democrat vs. Republican. It's the COMMON MAN vs. CORPORATIONS

[BigBearJohn]

Thoughts?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Why you think it can only be one thing completely eludes me.

[Skittles]

2. same thing

[Syrinx]

3. and the Democrats are entirely too beholden to the corporations

They're light-years ahead of the Republicans, but not enough light-years ahead.

We've got to get rid of the steamy three-way going on between the politicians, the media, and the corporate lobbyists.

[The Bakery Wagon]

4. more and more people are realizing this

hopefully

another way to phrase it: The Elites vs. the Streets

The Elites have won a few battles, but the struggle is just beginning.

No, actually that's the battle that's been going on for 10,000 years.

I don't know how much more obvious it can be these days






If the Democrats don't stand for what the Democrats used to stand for, and the Republicans don't stand for what the Republicans used to stand for, the whole bunch of posers will fall for anything

and they prove it everyday

[lpbk2713]

5. Marx and Engels weren't that far off base.

The rethuglican party is the party of the Capitalists and the Corporatists.

While the Democratic Party is the party of and for the working class.

I know I'm being very simplistic here but that's how they would see it.

[wundermaus]

6. Precisely

Correct.
Corporations have no business being human any more than humans have no business being property. Corporate personhood is as absurd as human slavery and just as corrupt.

[TWiley]

7. Nooo........ It is the rights of the Capitalist VS the rights of every living creature

That is where the battle line should be drawn. It is immoral to destroy life just to make a buck, and legislative effort should reflect that

[dmosh42]

8. Along this line, Obama has made two picks which really...

disturbs me. Daschle and Emanuel are real corporate pleasers, and I don't see this as a good omen for the coming health care battle. I'm in favor of the single payer type, not the health insurance cos desire, for sure. But this corporation thing will be the most divisive issue in the coming years. They are the enemy of the people.

[Berry Cool]

9. Nonsense, corporations aren't the enemy of the people. They're only what PEOPLE make of them.

If people make corporations heartless and evil, they will be heartless and evil. If people give them more rights than human beings, they will have more rights than human beings.

Corporations aren't inherently evil. The fault lies in our inability/refusal to control them and keep them from taking over our lives and becoming more important than people.

[Locrian]

10. noo....

>>Corporations aren't inherently evil

Corporations are sociopaths by definition. They are not a "good thing". A person with the traits of a corporation would be in prison or a mental institution.

1. The law says that corporations are persons. They have rights like the rest of us.
2. The law says that corporations must put profit above all else, with the single exception of breaking a law.
3. The chief characteristic of a sociopath is that he/she puts personal profit above all else.


A sociopath may display characteristics such as:

* Manipulative and Conning
* Grandiose Sense of Self
* Pathological Lying
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
* Shallow Emotions
* Incapacity for Love
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
* Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility


but yeah, I get what you are saying that they are a reflection of people - but whats the difference? As they stand, they are as "we" defined them.

[blindpig]

13. Corporations are merely a device of Capitalism.

They are not an anomaly or aberration, they are a means of capitalists efficiency, the best way to generate maximum profits. Besides the questionable benefits of economy of scale their size makes them too big to be ignored by government, at some level they will be accommodated.

As it stands, they are so well entrenched as to not be dislodged within the system, they own it. Only direct action of the people will remove them.

[BigBearJohn]

11. or did we create a frankenstein monster and now we're stuck with it?

[JohnnyBoots]

16. Makes me think of the Terminator films. Corporations are like the race of Terminators that man made

[BigBearJohn]

19. What an APT image. I love it. Fits the situation PERFECTLY! Thanks.

I'll use it.

[Mari333]

12. Ive kind of watched this evolve thru my life

when I was a kid there were small companies, often family owned, who hired people . even oil companies were smaller. of course there were the robber barons at the turn of the century, but even in the 50s there were smaller companies and not the huge mega corporations at the level we have now. global corporations intent on one thing..bottom line short term profit..reagan really got the ball rolling in the 80s when he gave the corporations HUGE tax breaks, promising all the american people that corporations would use their tax breaks in the USA to create new jobs..they didnt..they used the money to go to third world countries and pay slave wages..
my husband was in the union at the time and I remember saying 'this bodes poorly for workers but it will come back to bite corporations in the ass because if you dont pay a fair wage no one will be able to buy your products'
and thats whats happening..
there was also a sense of pride in american goods when i was a kid, and quality of american products..thats also gone, and the companies that had that kind of allegiance to the US are not around either..
no one is reigning them in...no one is calling them 'unpatriotic', no one is forging legislation that forces them to stay, no one is going after their offshore accounts...
and for 8 yrs they have been getting away with a drunken pirate party...they are used to getting their own way...until some real boundaries are made they will try and continue to do so..

[dmosh42]

15. couldn't have said it better! n/t

[mmonk]

14. True. And the common man is only sparsely represented

and does not have any controls on the wheel of power.

[H2O Man]

17. Absolutely true.

There are other factors, but they are relatively smaller.

[Eryemil]

18. Yes and no. Mostly no

When it comes to how societies are divided there are many factors that influence these fracture lines, all interconnected.

"Wealth" is a source from which most of the other factors originate. The word however is a bit misleading, it doesn't just represent financial stability, or rather it begins there but grows along the way.
With sufficient means that person would be more likely to:
-Have a stable upbringing.
-Parents more capable of providing enough attention (and guidance) to their children.
-To grow up in a home where education is encouraged.
-To have the means to pursue said education.
-Education which in turn leads to things like a higher degree of secularization
-and a proper understanding of science and the scientific process in particular
-which they impart on their children.

These people in turn flock from their university towns to cities looking for opportunity. Cities with much larger communities and a higher amount of diversity in terms of both thought and demographics, it is where the artists and pariahs flocks either looking for somewhere to belong or a place to get lost in.

This is a very simplistic model of how you end up with the labels "conservative" and "liberal".
Take a look at the factors that separate the two and you'll see what I mean.
-Degree if education between the two groups. (post-graduate, specially)
-Rate of religious belief.
-Location.
-Homogeneity of ideas

The 'Democrat' & 'Republican' labels are inconsequential, they're so similar the parties could unite and you wouldn't notice much of a difference.
States with large urban populations as well educational or cultural hotspots will still be more liberal while
places like Wyoming will remain the breeding ground of conservatism.

[rucky]

20. Somebody forgot to tell Republicans that.