Bi-Partisan Monopoly, speak your mind!

[Osborn F Enready]

So, I would like to know how and what people constitute a monopoly of politcal ideas, and leadership.

I often accuse the United States of being operated by a "bi-partisan monopoly", and I have several reasons for doing this. They are:

FACT: Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) 13th President of the United States was the last NON-republican, or democrat to hold the office of president in the United States. That means that since Fillmore, 153 years of Republicans and Democrats are solely responsible for the shift in government ideals and goals since that time.

FACT: Fillmore was one of the last Presidents to openly oppose expansion, or concentration of government powers, both in voice and by vote of legislation.

FACT: Since 1853, under Republican and Democratic leadership, several infringements on rights, in all forms of citizen rights, have been proposed, voted in, and furthered. Womens suffrage, and slavery are two examples of rights the PEOPLE won, as opposed to being recognized and enumerated by the parties in power before provocation by the people through national protest.

FACT: Republican and Democrats are SOLELY to blame for the regulation and permitted use of ALL television, radio and internet media. They have shown a consistent trend in supporting monopolization of that media, which is easier to control by the establishment, through the use of agencies such as the FCC, which was also created by them. (The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal agency established pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (title 47 of the United States Code - available online at <http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm>). Section 1 of the Act sets forth the authority for the creation of the FCC.)

FACT: Democrats and Republicans have worked together to bar any third party political groups access to both debates, and media forums. From 1976 through 1984 the televised presidential debates were organized by the non-partisan League of Women Voters until the Republican and Democratic parties decided to control the debates themselves. In 1987 the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was formed – a private entity run by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. Each election cycle the two campaigns negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding which the CPD follows. Bill Moyer's NOW has a link to the 2004 MOU (the first one ever made public).

The CPD's candidate selection criteria are exclusionary since they require that candidates average at least 15% support in 5 national polls. This makes it very difficult for any 3rd parties to get their views heard in the debates. It also keeps the debates limited to two candidates who are very similar on all but a handful of issues.

FACT: Often, since 1987, both parties have agreed to have their televised bi-partisan debates sponsored and provided by private entities, therefore isolating the bi-partisan canidates from scrutiny over physically preventing third parties to join the debates. Our last corrupt debates were brought to us by Corporate behemoth Anheuser Busch.

FACT: Both major parties have helped to further campaign finance expansion, and in turn, proven corruption has also expanded, and neither have stepped to the plate to start a reform initiative, until recently, under years of severe pressure from public and private citizen action groups, they are "talking about" reform.



All of these things above, lead me to a very troubling conclusion, especially when taking into account how neither party has stepped forward to DEMAND a change in voting, and an overall comprehensive voter reform act.

It appears as though the bi-partisan monopoly, is trying to control all "media covered" political thoughts and ideas. Their parties seek to protect their own, and exclude any new parties from entering the process for election of all major offices, especially the highest office of President of the United States. They do this by self overwatch, and ever increasing raising of the bar for other parties to enter the debates and election. Coupled with this we see corporate media increasing the "wasted vote" theory, and almost universal refusal to cover, interview, or announce third party campaign events, canidates and party rallies.

I want to know who out there knew this has been happening, how do you feel about it, and if you agree with the FACTS that the bi-partisan monopoly exists, though the level of coercion may still be debateable. There are a ton of inter-related issues dealing with taxation manipulation, creation and other necessary items of mention, but I wanted to keep this somewhat short until debate started on the topic, and we could see which direction it was going to take.

I look forward to OPEN, INTELLIGENT, MULTI-PARTISAN DEBATE on this topic, and I hope many of you out there partake with honesty and respect of all others who do.

Thanks for your time, and I hope to hear your thoughts.

[Osborn F Enready]

19 reads and not one comment, I am already disappointed.

[Milton Bradley]

Well, two of those views were me, but already know my feelings about such matters.


Perhaps the silence is indicative of the fundamental truth that many do not wish to address, or perhaps they view it as self evident.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Osborn, I have a counter question for you:

Whose fault is that there is a two party system?

The Political parties? Or the voters for allowing it?

I won't deny they have the power, I just disagree with you on why they have it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Osborn, I have a counter question for you: Whose fault is that there is a two party system? The Political parties? Or the voters for allowing it? I won't deny they have the power, I just disagree with you on why they have it.

The press, for perpetuating the myth that there are only two sides to every story.


Directly, or indirectly, the government has partial responsibility.


Was it not them who are supposed to regulate the news agencies through the FCC?


Is it not the FCC who was in charge of making sure that public interest was being served, and the political parties sharing equal time?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Again Milton, you hate the players... hate the game man.

WE are the game, WE are the leaders, WE are at fault for allowing it.

Blaming the government, the media, the parties for doing what the people LET them do is a waste of time, effort and is patently dishonest.

WE the people run this government. Everytime I see someone blaming the government for something I shake my head.

I voted for Bush, yet I blame myself for supporting some certain failures, the boder, spending, education.... there is no perfect system.

Osborn, blames the two parties for setting and instilling themselves into power. Wrong answer. The answer is we the people failed. Not they the government.

[thatoneguy00]

you know in other countries they have like fifty candidates for office

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Again Milton, you hate the players... hate the game man. WE are the game, WE are the leaders, WE are at fault for allowing it. Blaming the government, the media, the parties for doing what the people LET them do is a waste of time, effort and is patently dishonest. WE the people run this government. Everytime I see someone blaming the government for something I shake my head. I voted for Bush, yet I blame myself for supporting some certain failures, the boder, spending, education.... there is no perfect system. Osborn, blames the two parties for setting and instilling themselves into power. Wrong answer. The answer is we the people failed. Not they the government.

Sorry, we were not old enough to vote, or do anything about the transgrssions at the time, we only live with its legacy.


A legacy of crime, and criminals is not what I intend to defend, or pledge my allegience too.


We are forced through circumstance not of our choosing to deal with the present, and the criminals now harming us, and our families.


Nice copout though.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Nice copout?

I am pointing out a fact, whose fault it is that the system is the way it is. You on the other hand, won't accept that. You want to blame others, it's not your fault, why should you have to deal with it?

You don't, you can move, but we both know you can't do that, there is no better place to live then America.

If you can't accept whose fault it is, then you have blinders on.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Nice copout? I am pointing out a fact, whose fault it is that the system is the way it is. You on the other hand, won't accept that. You want to blame others, it's not your fault, why should you have to deal with it?

Here I thought tripe was cow intestine, and I was not aware you could manufacture such a thing.


We are realists, and prepared to deal with the problems as we see them, which is far different than you obviousy see things. If anybody here is wearing blinders, it is you my friend.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You don't, you can move, but we both know you can't do that, there is no better place to live then America.

I'll make that decision for myself, thank you very much. That is also an opinion that you share with fewer, and fewer people as time goes by.


I wish I was as cock sure of anything, as Vicchio is of everything (he says).

[Mr.Vicchio]

Are you saying that the people have no blame in the way the system is today? Just lay the blame on others?

If you believe that, honestly believe that the government and the way the political system works is on the shoulders of those in power, then you haven't a clue as to how the system is supposed to work.

We, the people are the bosses (or supposed to be) they, the politicians are just temp employees serving our needs. If you don't realize this, then there is no hope for you.

[Apeman81]

Kind of a chicken and egg thread. Which came first?

One can easily play the field of democrats are wrong, republicans are wrong, or both are wrong. But to what avail?

Which came first, the parties, or the ideals that lead to their formation?

Americans have for decades used a bipartisan approach to governance. They have found the bulk of their ideals fall into one or the other party. And parties have been held to those standards, more or less, by the people. More than two parties does not work well with our form of government. The triumvirate of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial format tends to preclude as effective a more diverse, parliamentary style. I cannot say that in theory, I disagree with our style.

Which leads me to concentrate on the existent parties. Why do they still hold sway? Are their ideals and goals still shared by the people? Is it time for a new party to emerge that will inevitably edge out one of the others?

That question falls on our shoulders. Our government is of, by and for the people. We are responsible for our government, not the other way round. We, for the most part, have abdicated our control of the parties, and our government. What percentage of eligible people vote? Of those that do vote, how many vote as they do after thoughtful consideration of the issues and people, and how many because of peer pressure?

It can demonstrated that certain demographic groups vote in highly disparate proportion for a particular party. It can be equally demonstrated that a member of that demographic that varies from the group can receive vicious ridicule.

This, when added to the general apathy toward our controlling our representation has empowered some in government to; a) ignore the chronic non-voter, and b) count the vote as given no matter what they do. This combination has lead invariably leads to drift from the desires of the represented toward the desires of the representatives.

No new party will ever make the impact they may hope for until the barrier of apathy and the barrier of dependency are broken down.

[Jeff]

For most of our history we have been a two party system. Part of the blame does rest with the populace. Part of the blame rest with the system that makes it next to impossible for a third party to immerge.

In our society less than half of the eligible voters ever vote. A large portion of those that do vote do so based only on party affiliation. Few know anything about those for which they are casting their ballots. During the last presidential election most voters could not recall 3 or more names of people that they had just voted for. Most people are not much different than lemmings when it comes to voting. (No offense to lemmings was intended.) In listening to the interviews on the Hannity show I realize that there will never be a shortage of people to fix my burger when I go to McDonalds.

With all the money required we will never have a viable third party. If we had a system that allowed other parties to grow then we would have better choices then we might get some alternatives. There are systems of voting that allow one to vote for a third party without wasting a ballot. If a party actually had good ideas then it could grow from a grassroots position. It could also force the current parties to have real ideas and follow through to compete. In our system the party will die before it has a chance in the major elections.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Are you saying that the people have no blame in the way the system is today? Just lay the blame on others?

I'm saying, as I have said so many times, that the system was corrupted beyond recognition before I was old enough to affect the system. The declared State of Emergeny had bee in effect for over 30 years on the day I was born. Pity for me, eh?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio If you believe that, honestly believe that the government and the way the political system works is on the shoulders of those in power, then you haven't a clue as to how the system is supposed to work.

As a mtter of fact, I do know who usurped the power of the citizen, and I know where they put it as well. They have concentrated the powers in the Executive Branch.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio We, the people are the bosses (or supposed to be) they, the politicians are just temp employees serving our needs. If you don't realize this, then there is no hope for you.

Prove it. Show me how they jump to attention when you make a request. (All we ever get are form letters, and an occasional serious letter proving that they read the message, and realized they could not respond with the typical form letter.)


As to your request for proof of a right I have lost due to Executive power intruding into life, my example would be the ability to cultivate, sell, and consume marijuanna. That authority, stolen by the Executive, is given to the FDA, the ATF, and the DEA, all of which allege to be acting on behalf of the President.


No legitimate, constitutional document can be shown that grants the government the power to regulate the cultivation of vegetables, or to prohibit the consumption thereoff. (Like, for example, the documents proving the authority for the prohibition of alchohol.)

[SteveA]

Great thread, Osborn.

Vicchio, I agree with about everything you said. If we assume everyone has an individual right to not be tyrannized, then we have an obligation to respect this though. Just like recognizing a freedom of religion requires the responsibility to not encroach on others private religious actions. It's a two way street - freedom and responsibility/accountability.

It's a pervasive social problem. People act irresponsibly. I know I'm guilty of a lot of things also but the truth is that if we're going to have a society where few are willing to look at their faults and use self restraint when dealing with others then either 1) we're going to continue to go around painfully stepping on each other or 2) people are going to have to forcibly defend themselves from being trampled on.

We don't pay taxes and follow the laws simply because it's fun, we do it because we (generally) believe in many of the more noble ideas and virtues we've hoped government would retain over time and assume we benefit by trying to support the current system. The Constitution was an agreement by "The People", not government. The end of the agreement "The People" are expected to hold up is following the laws, while the end of the agreement the government is expected to uphold is working within the text and spirit of the Constitution. The President's first duty is to swear to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is his friend and what makes his position even possible. It's what differents his actions from a common thug. He's given compensation for his effort, and has been given freedom to represent the interests of many people but that of course comes with the responsibility of remaining true to those interests. Truly Congress and the Supreme Court have little real power if the President chooses to ignore them, and I'm not saying that's surely happened but consider that it seems to many people in the federal government, the Constitution and public interests are not something to hold dear and respect as the value of their positions, but simply an impediment that holds them in a straightjacket. What's wrong with that? For all the complaints, the Supreme Court is a group of 9 elderly people (my apologies) who could hardly swat a fly if you held it steady for them. Congress and the Republican party is a rubber stamp to Presidental whim. The President has gotten virtually everything he wished for all I can tell. How about we stop worrying about what George and Co. wants for a change ... or even the 20% of the country that worships him? A lot of people simply feel trapped into supporting Republicans because they don't want Hillary and crew in office, and that's understandable in my opinion. But this seems ridiculous that people who claim to live in the freest country in the world would simply accept pushing a button to pick which royal family they want as a ruler.

Reagan used to say "smaller govenment closer to the people" and "government is not the solution, it's the problem". Maybe he didn't follow through perfectly but at least he could blame a Democratic congress. Bush doesn't even have that luxury. When was the last time Bush encouraged less government anything? Our deficits are at record levels, housing prices, gas and energy are up, jobs are still flowing out of the country and now we have a foreign continent glaring at us. The Republicans got their wish and blew it, just like Schwartzennegar. The only way to fix this stuff is to finally admit that we've tolerated many illegitimate actions by government. There is no explicit 4th branch of government people talk about but it's true, as you say Vicchio, that it's time to start turning away from government as the solution to fixing itself and start looking at the individuals causing this. Though truly corrupt government representatives themselves must shoulder much of the blame because we've entrusted them with this responsibility and they accepted the position. If you don' have honorable intentions, don't run for office. If someone intends to simply use the public trust for corrupt purposes or isn't willing to defend the interests of those they represent then they shouldn't take the responsibility of holding a public office. People who see corruption in office should actively strip those people of power. Noone's perfect, but that includes public officials. We probably place too much trust in our elected leaders ... but part of that fault lies with the leaders themselves preaching these views via. public education or government regulation of the media etc. My childrens home work seems to be half the time, even for unrelated studies, like English or Math about the power and merits of government. My sons math homework last night was about shooting down incoming enemies. English practice sentences seem to be half about preaching politically correct views of things.

[bishop]

can't leave out that little nuance that there are still many people out there who continue to support these corrupt parties.. actions definitely speak much louder than their words.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said:
Osborn, I have a counter question for you:
Whose fault is that there is a two party system?

I say:
This is not only about blame Vic, and in this case the blame is probably about equal on both sides between the people and the major parties. The old saying divide and conquer is much older than this nation. That was the strategy behind the splits in the Republican Democrat party, as well as the end of the whigs. That is the strategy that was used, to isolate all but the majority out of the picture in the elections after 1912, when the Socialist presence was making a big showing with Eugene Debs. As we know, this was the precursor to the blend of patriotic G.I. Joe Socialism that F.D.R. brought in. After F.D.R., NOTHING was the same. The New Deal, the Federal Reserve, the entire system revamped from the ground up, and the results are what we are seeing today. Corporatism, absolute corruption from the state level up in government and every tentacle that draws its funds and directives from there.

The point is, the worldwide media developed while they were in power, and they created the rules for control of it, selling out to their true statements and supposed intentions of "informing" the people, instead drifting to what we have now which is purely corporate commercial sponsored, propaganda ridden "programming" aimed at dumbing down the populace. May I remind you that "Judge Judy" is a (reality) show...... Add to that corporate controlled media, an armada of endless pocket special intrest groups funded by corporations, constantly assaulting the Congress and Senate, proposing legislation to benefit CORPORATIONS, while the people are sitting at home trying to get a letter read by one of their representatives...... which one wins? Paid lunch date at exclusive restraunt, and a couple corporate whore blowjobs, or a letter from a concerned citizen? Add to that an educational system that spends 85% of its time on menial education, with 15% to how government functions and their role in it. They (teachers, policeman, fireman, yes-men) preach about how ignorance of the law is no excuse, never minding the fact that the lawbook is so big they can't even recite one chapter let alone one volume, of the many volumes of contents.

So in one sense, yes, it is the peoples fault, because everyone is a people. On the other hand, out of all those people, only the representatives take the oath, and only the media pledges to inform, and only the teachers and schools pledge to educate..... AND THEY ARE ALL FAILING ON THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS EXCLUSIVE WATCH! They are the puppet masters, it is simply the puppets who are bewildered at why their arms and legs move on their own. They can no longer vote with their feet, because the puppet master controls those too.

Vic said:
The Political parties? Or the voters for allowing it?

I say:
AS I said, both. WHOSE duty is it to right things again? The peoples! What if the people have been so mis-taught their roles, they no longer understand they can go outside the fence to graze? Then you have what I call domesticated people, or sheeple. They are purebred consumers. They are trapped in the mental box that the all powerful, big brother mentality beats in 24-7. They care more about their satellite dish and their matching drapes than they care about whether their son billy will have a right left to his name, or a job left to get that will pay more than survival pay.

We the people have not only the legal right, but the REASON to stop this corruption Vic, and it shouldn't be stupid ass party names and icons stopping the progress. This reminds me of a Ford and a Chevy guy, arguing over which car is better, while a Toyota is voted as best because they spent less time arguing, and more time listening to customers, and actually improving designs.

It is our duty to step in when government oversteps its bounds, makes bad decisions that hurt the nation OR its security, and both major parties have been doing it for years on end.

It's time for a change.

Vic said:
I won't deny they have the power, I just disagree with you on why they have it.

I say:
Fair enough Vic, and I would love to debate that. I can provide pretty compelling reasons, methods, violations, and proof of most of what I say, the only part that needs to be explored is the level of coercion. If you research it, and then still don't believe it, that is your choice obviously. But to simply dismiss it, is just plain a cop-out, much like I think Milton already said.

[Osborn F Enready]

Apeman said:
No new party will ever make the impact they may hope for until the barrier of apathy and the barrier of dependency are broken down.

I say:
I agree. MY question is are the people so misinformed so as to require a revolt, before they understand this? That is seemingly becoming the picture we are getting.

This is one good thing to think about though.....It only took 5.7% of the population to win the revolutionary war, and free the United States from tyranny the first time. I am betting much less a percentage will be required this time.

[Scribbler1]

"We have met the enemy and they is us."

Foolish, lazy frightened people who find it expedient to believe the liars who bullshit their way into positions of authority. Foolish because they BELIEVE the people who say they want to work to change the corrupt cesspool that is our government. Lazy because it takes a little effort to watch, listen and REMEMBER what goes on. And frightened because they are afraid of the very change necessary to correct the mistakes the people have been making.
Corrections which would now probably be too little too late I'm afraid.

I side with Vicchio on this one. The people ELECTED the criminals. Over and over again and rarely on the strength of what THEY would do to justify our trust but on the strength of how bad the other guy was.

Of course, I have every reason to believe the election process is not to be trusted and is loaded with fraud. But there had to be a time, a deciding moment when we installed people in positions of power who made the fraud possible.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said:
Of course, I have every reason to believe the election process is not to be trusted and is loaded with fraud. But there had to be a time, a deciding moment when we installed people in positions of power who made the fraud possible.

I say:
So whose job is it to fix it, and when do WE start.

So we all agree its messed up, but the only real solution I have heard that COULD work so far is revolt, due to the FRAGMENTED nations level of division. I thought the whole aim of the two party sytsem was to keep everyone UNITED? HAR HAR.

This is my point.

Republicans are the Chevy guys, Democrats are the Ford guys, and right now they are so busy arguing about THEIR differences, they forgot about the customer base, and I predict record losses.
The question is, who will be the Toyota?