portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article


did you vote democrat and blame nader for the loser in the white house?
its pretty clear the democrats want this war as bad as bush. you get one or to very hopeful statements from the democrats: but they do a 180 degrees when they vote. thats the bill clinton strategy....

sen. patty murry stuffs patriot 2 in senate bill 22.

biden, dachel, liberman-as hawk as the next. remember the demos took us down vietnam ally..dead people all over....

voting for demos or republican is a wasted vote- it will rob you. it makes sure you pay more than anyother country for safe and unsafe drugs.it will kill you. us citizens and any others persons that gets in its way!!!!!!

voting for demos or republican is the same as voting for vampires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the vampires are not just running the us, but they are running the world.

run green. vote green. vote the vampires out.

let the light of truth vaporize the opposition.

I vote republican and thank nader for GW! 10.Mar.2003 22:16



I sent him a an FTD flower arrangement last year..

We couldn't have done it without good old Ralph.

Too bad the media isn't going to give any left wing third party people the time of day, much less any national air time no matter how much they bitch..

the media blames nader, and themselves for 2000. 537 votes less for nader and for gore, and my side would be out of luck.

Sorry guys, you got out foxed this time.

Next time you have a tantrum and vote against the dems, you should calm down before the second tuesday in November!

thanks, we couldn't have done it without you..

Remember to Vote Green in 2004!!

don't look in the mirror 10.Mar.2003 22:19

the count

you may not see any reflection.

in the meantime, I'd rather be a blood sucking vamp, than a pablum puking commie..

at least nobody has ever had a sexual fantasy about being bitten by a commie!

have to go before the sun comes up..


to 'fff', 'the count'--'commie' is antiquated 10.Mar.2003 22:37

velcro buddah

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996


n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
corporate police state


"Plutocracy" Defined

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)


See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
Go to the Essay on Politics
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
Return to the PL Site Map

Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892003

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics

to 'fff', 'the count'--'commie' is antiquated
to 'fff', 'the count'--'commie' is antiquated

Has Patriot 2 been introduced? 10.Mar.2003 22:55

want to know

Yo, dude, I have heard this claim that Patriot 2 has been put in Senate Bill 22, but didn't see that when I read the bill. I'm not saying your wrong, but please explain. If Patty Murray did that I guess I'll have to write her, fat lot of good it will do.

S.22 still suxs, but 11.Mar.2003 02:22

Under Construction

None of the really egregious provisions of the leaked draft of "Patriot"II, i.e., the secret arrests, deprivation of citizenship and general handing over of the American people to rule by administrative fiat appear to be in S.B. 22.

In fact, it appears to limit the whole "military tribunal" thing to non-citizens, requires disclosure of prosecution evidence and explicitly involves the normal judiciary, whereas the thrust of the Bush/Ashcroft regime's police-state wish list has been to destroy the very concept of rule of law interpreted by an independent judiciary in favor of the absolute power of the executive branch.

It's still a rather authoritarian bill, and Murray is very likely an ass, but claiming that this is "Patriot"II introduced looks inaccurate to me.

dd = extremely sexxy commie 11.Mar.2003 09:42

Deputy Dawg

1. dd is the subject of many sexual fantasies

2. dd is commie sympathizer while being syndicalist

3. dd voted nader, the only other option being not voting at all which is too passive-aggressive.

4. passive-aggressive is not sexxy