Democratic and Republican parties, as distinctive parties, are shams.

Financial Sense Online ^ | September 2, 2003 | Nelson Hultberg

[bota]

One of the most popular ideas taught in American civics classes is that the strength of the American political system lies in the fact that we have a two-party political process. This, I maintain, is akin to teaching that babies come from storks. It's a fairy tale we spin out to avoid messy details of reality we prefer not to face. The reality is that the Democratic and Republican parties, as distinctive parties, are shams. They have become nothing but two divisions of the Central Leviathan Party. This has been our political reality ever since Dwight Eisenhower defeated the "old guard" individualist Republicans under Robert Taft in 1952 and made the Republicans into a big government welfare-state party like the New Deal Democrats of Roosevelt and Truman. From that year on, there has been no voice in the world of politics for the original Founders' vision. The last vestiges of limited, decentralized government died with Eisenhower's capitulation to Keynes and the New Deal.

In the ensuing decades, the collectivists have skillfully established a deceptive ONE-PARTY dictatorial system, which their media lackeys spin to the public as "two parties" and which the collectivist power elites maintain by waging phony battles every four years, all of which the gullible public buys into. Yet every year no matter who wins at the polls, government grows larger and more fascistic. Therefore, all talk about which of these Tweedledum and Tweedledee institutions is better than the other is a game of "nonsense on stilts" (to borrow a phrase from the 19th century philosopher, Jeremy Bentham). Because both parties subscribe to the same fundamental premises, which manifest in the dictatorial paradigm of fascism, they both end up tyrannizing our lives.

To those Republican sympathizers who still hold out hope that the GOP can be some kind of a solution to the runaway lunacy of today's spendaholics on the Potomac, I offer exhibit A, Mr. Republican himself, President George W. Bush...............

[bota]

A very good read. I talk to people every day who have given up on the political process and agree with Mr. Hultberg that we are in for some very rough times.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I read this twice. A little over my head. All in all, very interesting, albeit depressing.

Why all the apocalypse and 4 horseman language?

What is Elliot Wave Theory? The site mentions this a few times. My dad gave me some printouts from Elliot Wave International last year. The signup cost for their advice, I believe, was in the thousands.

[KeyWest]

Poorly written and sophmoric. The issue is valid but not the manner it is presented. But this is the internet.

[bota]

Ping, for those who are awake during the day....

[bota]

Your response is like ignoring a person who yell's fire in a theatre because he used an incomplete sentence. I didn't post this for an English critique but to spread a concern about very serious issues we are facing as a nation.

[GSWarrior]

who have given up on the political process and agree with Mr. Hultberg that we are in for some very rough times.

Count me among them. Good post.

[KeyWest]

Only two others read this screed and one is suspect and may be du. The issue is not new and is actually a false one as presented here. It is a typical internet piece of junk.

[bota]

I notice that your in depth analysis has so far consisted of name calling (screed, piece of junk). Which part is false? Has big government gotten smaller? Have the dollar printing presses slowed? Have our freedoms increased? Are the nations deficits over 450 billion a year? Has the national debt decreased? That's OK, don't try to refute these statements just dismiss them by calling them stupid and bask in the glory of blessing us with such a well thought out reasoned analysis.

[bota]

Ping............ing for answers to post 8.

[bota]

What? No reply. Aren't you going to refute post 8. Is it because you know it's true or that you have to put more effort in to refuting it than name calling?