Obama ending war in Iraq. Soldiers home for holidays.

[Flake]

If my views seem extreme, consider how a modern democratic capitalist would have looked in feudal ages.

Lol, the feudal age was the age of Manor economics. People lived as serfs on the land of the well-to-do, contributing their labor in exchange for a portion of the food they were able to cull from the land.

The modern democratic capitalist would be quite at home in the feudal ages.

But I'll just assume that was a clumsy example; I know what you meant.

Still, your ideas are so populist and border line paranoid that sometimes I wonder if you think about the stances that you take or if you just pull them off of a message board somewhere. That could just be the difficulty in applying nuance to expression when text is the medium of interaction.

[o.pwuaioc]

Really? How else do you explain the past 30 years of ever increasing gaps between rich and poor? If either party really represented the poor or the middle class, they'd have been fighting this for decades by now. Instead, they just bring up wedge issues (abortion, gay rights, immigration) etc just to get people to take sides.

Easy. Since Ronald Reagan, there has either been a Republican president in office or a Republican controlled Congress, with only a few years (like the first two years of Clinton and the first two of Obama, which saw major change thank you very much) when the Democrats controlled both.

I struggle to understand how anyone can look at politics and not see this. Given that less than half of the populace votes in any election, it seems like the people know it's a farce.

Bush II gave the rich huge tax cuts. Obama wanted them repealed. That's about as far apart as we can possibly be.

The Democrats aren't perfect - far be it, and often are far too liberal for me, but I can clearly see a difference between them and the Republicans, whose overt Christian fundamentalism and unabashed love for the corporation is in stark contrast to the pro-rights mantra of the Democrats.

[MrPopo]

Why shouldn't there be an ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor?

Because we live in a supposed democracy. Since the poor outnumber the rich, they should be able to make policy in their favor. Since they haven't, that's empirical evidence that the democracy isn't exactly working.

Again, I just provided mathematical evidence that the rich should get richer faster than the poor which is completely independent of policy. If things are fair and equitable then the rich will outrace the poor.

BTW Popo, do you have anything else to say in defense of the organized crime syndicate we call the finance industry?

Organized crime syndicate, huh? I suppose the CIA is a terrorist organization, as well.