What will it take to wake you up to the fact that our government is beyond corrupt?
And, I'm not talking, normal government corruption, such as a few individuals who take advantage of the system. I'm talking a major coup d'etat that I believe began in full force after Reagan's election, and is reaching its final goal right about now; hence, the reason they're so blatantly stamping all over our rights. It matters not who is president...the plan continues to unfold.%0D
Here's the thing. Their blue blood, status, power, well-groomed appearance, and wealth only serves to veil some of the most ruthless "human beings" on earth. Once you open your eyes, and know the ultimate agenda, everything makes perfect sense. From Reagan's welfare queen to the savings and loan crisis to the deregulating and bubble creating 90s and welfare reform to the ridiculous Bush admin to 9/11 to the to the Patriot Act to Iraq to the erosion of the middle-class and the collapse of our economy and the banksters/corp elite who not only walked away scott-free, but profited more than they ever have to the increasing wars, and excuses to go to war to... %0D
It's horrifying, yet, at the same time, even though I'm sure people will remain blind to what's going on, it has given me a sense of confidence I didn't have before. I'm not confused anymore.
No tinfoil required, just a brain
You are giving them too much credit if you think they have a "plan." Sociopaths don''t really plan, they are parasites of the moment.%0D
R1 you are so wrong.
Indeed, living in the moment and not by plan enables them to respond to any circumstance. If they had an actual plan they might feel an urge to stick to it. But as soon as it becomes more useful to their immediate bottom line to pick a fight with China, the "free trade" bullshit will all disappear overnight and they will plunge us into nuclear war.%0D
Oh, and let''s not forget Citizens United.%0D\
The systemic, now mostly "lawful" corruption is top-down, from every branch of government.%0D\
It''s not all that hard to imagine how this occured over the past 40 years, and especially when you look at who seems to be running everything, throughout the entire period.%0D\
Jeb Bush WILL be president in the next 8 years.
OP, you''re not excluding Democrats, are you?
Oh, there is a plan alright, howerver it''s very flexible, and there are back-up plans.%0D\
These people are light years ahead of us. They''re super organized, and they KNOW a hell of a lot more than us, because they have spent the last 40 years dumbing us down to complete idiots without the abiity to critically think about what they''re doing. %0D\
And they''re not all sociopaths. Some are just plain evil people who really believe they are superior to the "useless eaters". %0D\
Do you feel guilty when you exterminate ants? Rats? Well, that''s how they think of us.
all of politics is corrupt. Government can rise above politics, but not in this age, unfortunately.
R6, what do you think the definition of sociopath is?
Although they have plans, at national and international levels, but they are becoming more incompetent in implementation of them each day.
The internet is exposing a lot of their shenanigans and shady deals. People can actually learn about the origins of the Federal Reserve, and the ways that powerful banking interests are draining money with government complicity and help. They can learn about how we were lied into both world wars, Viet Nam, and the middle east, reading about the assassinations of various leaders by the CIA to install US-friendly dictators.
The more people that realize that government is built on lies and blood, the sooner we can begin the process of exorcising it from society. It is a deadly fiction to believe that we cannot live peacefully without someone holding a gun to our head.
Humans are ingenious and cooperative when their interests are mutually beneficial, and reasonable and competent at designing systems to deal with conflict. When the government implements a "one size fits all" legal system, corrupt at the core, it turns men into cons and liars, since there is little punishment if discovered, and the reward of living at the expense of other people is too tempting to deny.
It started with Johnson, not Reagan.
To answer your question, when they come for our Twinkies, our HDTV and our cell phones.
It started with Reagan?? It started with Johnson?? Our forefathers were fighting the central banks 2 centuries ago. Our presidents haven''t fought them in decades because they''re their little puppets. Things really started rolling with that traitor Woodrow Wilson. JFK was the last prez to go against them. Ron Paul will challenge their tyrannical control over the US and the rest of the world even more so if he makes it to office. But rest assured they''ll try to take him out too once he goes too far.
Ron Paul''s best defenses are the fact that his supporters know the government lies about assassination of political enemies, and that he would be just as powerful as a martyr. \
He''s really the only one speaking truth to power when it comes to DC. His views- end the wars and occupations of foreign countries, end the war on drugs, get government out of the bedroom AND the boardroom, truly balance the budget- will get his a lot of support from Democrats. The truly liberal left- not the Obama worshipping elite- recognizes that military spending and bank bailouts are killing the country, and the Paul is the only choice for actually stopping the madness.
OP is just a freeper troll trying to get Dems not to vote by claiming their is no difference between the parties %0D\
Wake me when Dems try to pass a "Don''t Say Gay" bill, or when they try to defund Planned Parenthood or bust up unions
The Paultards are just a bunch of stupid right-wing rednecks.%0D\
Ron Paul is a dumbass Bible banger who hates gays and wants to ban abortion and gay marriage. So much for his belief in "limited government"%0D\
I really don''t think that would stop them, r13. They just don''t care when their power to rape trillions of dollars from Americans is threatened. They tell us the most ridiculous and insulting lies without batting an eye. After all, who has been successful in stopping them yet? But I do believe more and more people are starting to wake up and their days are numbered. It ain''t gonna be pretty when it comes to a head.\
Have you seen this new animated movie The American Dream?
"But I do believe more and more people are starting to wake up and their days are numbered."%0D\
The Ron Paul fans are the ones who need to wake up.
Here''s a link to the film on YT, r13. I haven''t watched it myself yet, but will do so now. I just wanted to post the link.
Tin foil is not your problem. It''s thinking you''re saying anything controversial or original enough to be accused of being a tinhat.
THEY seem so powerful somehow.
"His views- end the wars and occupations of foreign countries, end the war on drugs, get government out of the bedroom AND the boardroom, truly balance the budget- will get his a lot of support from Democrats"%0D\
Cutting social welfare programs just to balance the budget will not get the support of Democrats. %0D\
And Paul does not support getting the government out of people''s bedrooms. He is anti-choice and a homophobe.
Ron Paul is a racist idiot. I don''t trust him or his supporters. Mother Jones has a good article on him and his extremist ideas.
I agree with OP, but also r1. \
We''re not dealing with the brightest bulbs, but highly motivated sociopaths and manipulators who have been bred by Republicans for years and years. It''s all about selfishness which has been translated into patriotism. The people who function that way are actually the dumbest people on the planet. What they ARE capable of is flummoxing the intelligent people with their selfishness and stupidity since intelligent people simply do not function the way sociopaths do. There is a fundamental and inherent physical difference in how Republican''s brains function from the rest of the world, and they are coddled and raised to believe everything that they do is morally correct and right. They are, of course, absolutely wrong and should be put in exile on an island somewhere in the South Pacific never to be heard from again. \
Doubtful that will happen though, and instead we''ll see the collapse of America.
To ignore the Democratic Party's actual history towards unions, as opposed to the smooch fest the leaders of each have before every election, is to bullshit yourself as to what side the Republican and the Democratic administrations both will chose when workers and the bosses go to war.
Consider Taft Hartley.
For those of you who may not know, Taft Hartley is an act Congress passed in 1947. It put strict limits on what unions could do by withholding their labor.
The Taft%E2%80%93Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns.
It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass "right-to-work laws" that outlawed union shops.
Furthermore, the executive branch of the Federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike "imperiled the national health or safety," a test that has been interpreted broadly by the courts.
How does this play out today?
If factory workers in Madison wanted to strike in solidarity with the public workers under assault from the Republicans, the U.S. government can step in and break the unions.
If bus drivers in NYC wanted to strike to stop layoffs of teachers, they could get fired and their union busted. Thank you Taft Hartley.
Not just the strike in question, mind you. The U.S. government can disband the unions themselves -- or put them under government leadership, which would be far worse.
Although passed over his veto, Democratic President Harry Truman used the Taft-Hartley Act 12 times against labor unions. Twelve fucking times.
More recently, Jimmy Carter, a Democratic President, invoked Taft Hartley against a UMW strike, attempting and failing, because the miners told him where to put the pick axe.
If you want to know how the Democratic Party treats working people aside from the union issue, consider Clinton and NAFTA.
By any measure, NAFTA has been an absolute disaster for working people in Mexico and the United States, unless your only measure of success is how productivity and profits jumped because owners could ship ever-more crummy jobs around in search of cheap labor sources.
NAFTA never put a dime in wages or public services for the average person. Our schools got closed, and the bosses buy bigger yachts.
NAFTA made it all but impossible to unionize. How do you organize a rootless workforce always on the move to find work, any work, any work at any wages?
All the increased profits, under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, have gone straight into the pockets of the rich.
I challenge you to name one significant change in labor law that has permanently empowered unions under Clinton or Obama.
By contrast, how many laws have the Democrats passed that helped Wall Street and the very rich? Do not start naming bullets we dodged or might dodge soon because the Democrats were in power.
We deserve a better choice than, "For God's sake you have to vote for us -- the Republicans are worse than we are!"
Which is the choice we get every election.
If you do not count Obama Care, which I don't, because handing a billion with a "B" over to health industry so they will shut up about their lost profits, if you don't count Obama Care, there has not be one significant civil rights or social welfare legislation passed since 1970.
This is a selling point for an allegiance to a party that has done nothing for working people in 40 years? Enough is enough.
Check out the video on how to rebuild our nation through tax legislation. When is it we can see the Democratic Party campaign on a platform of redistribution of wealth?
"It never will," you say?" That's right. It won't.
But it also will not go to the wall, or across the street, for that matter, for the labor movement.
Remember EFCA? I do. The one thing unions wanted from Obama. He flipped us off.
for me? probably mass graves. i think the situation at arlington cemetery hints that this is entirely conceivable in our current american society.
No not beyond corrupt- the Kennedy political machine was perhaps one of the most corrupt political organizations- ever- LBJ too and he created the Great Society.%0D
Rather OP, what you are referring to is the modern conservative Republican party and evolving platform and programs over the years that had its origins in the Reagan administration, when he cut taxes and deregulated everything and increasedthe deficits with military spending. Remember deficits don't matter? He and other Repubs won elections OP. NOT a coup d'etat at all.%0D
So vote Democrat, vote left Democrat. By all means vote, vote, vote. Less than 40% of eligible voters in the US vote, as opposed to 80% in Europe. The apathetic are NOT as conservative as the Republican party. The country is not as far right as the last election cycle. Or rather, the government does not represent the electorate- which to a large degree doen't vote.%0D
My guess is about 50%, at best, of those on DL voted last November. Posters state all the time that there is no difference between Obama and Bush or the Republicans which is about as wrong as you can be. And we suffer because of it (those people use the excuse not to vote.)%0D
Therein is your coup d'etat. %0D
By the way, the Reagans and the Bushes did not get along well. And Karl Rove cannot stand Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.%0D
[quote]By the way, the Reagans and the Bushes did not get along well%0D\
That is becasue the CIA damned near successfully killed Reagan in March of 1981 and installed Bush in the White House eight years ahead of schedule. George H. W. Bush has been a constant presence in the executive branch from then to now. Clinton was his boy and so is Obama.
Ron Paul may be correct on some points -- mostly economical.\
But not on ALL points -- mostly social.\
I will NOT trade in my civil rights for financial ones.
R30, financial rights ARE civil rights! If you don't own your body, and the fruits of its labor, then who does?
Ron Paul hates abortion, but has repeatedly stated that he would never support a national law outlawing them.
If he's such a homophobe, why did he vote against DOMA and invite GOProud to CPAC as his guests? Why did he hire a gay man to lead his team in 2008? Why does he support the repeal of DADT?
If a Black Power group doesn't want to hire a white guy, or a gay-rights group doesn't want to hire a Christian homophobe, or a church doesn't want to hire an Islamic secretary, nobody should have the power to force them to. The same courtesy should be extended to everyone.
The only way we are going to get equal treatment, legally and socially, is by reaching out and educating people, while at the same time showing a respect for their beliefs. The law should treat everyone as equal, to be discriminated against or accepted as an individual.
By removing government from ALL marriages (a position Paul supports) and making them civil unions, the issue of gay marriage is left up to the clergy- where it should be!
See the article at the link for an example of how the Xtian right hates him for "furthering the homosexual agenda!"
People that still believe that voting can change things are delusional. The Republicrats love to try to convince people that they are on their side, while all the while selling them out to the highest bidder.\
Every president since Kennedy has been a puppet, or a puppet master, and the difference between them is thinner than a dime. The define themselves in a Hegelian dialectic and then marginalize anyone who falls outside that dialectic, slandering them as "fringe" or "far right/left" or "racist". They offer tidbits - a marginal tax cut, or gay marriage, or subsidies to stimulate business, or welfare reform, or a 2% increase in social spending- but the BIG items, like the military, remain off the table.\
Wake up, charlie, and recognize that you''re just another one of the useful idiots these psychos need to stay in power.
Ron Paul believes in Jim Crow. So FUCK HIM.
I agree with R9.
R33- opposing legislation, in this case the 1964 CR bill, does not make someone in favor of the opposite. If congress passed a law making poverty illegal, and Paul opposed it, that doesn't mean he supports poverty. It just means that he sees that the effects of the bill will be unintended consequences we cannot imagine.
The 1964CRB has NOT had a positive impact for the majority of black Americans. Data from before and after show a negative correlation between upward mobility, poverty and education after the implementation of the policies of the 60s. The war on drugs- another policy Paul would repeal- was just the final piece needed to keep the black population in poverty.
Treating blacks- or even more egregiously, native Americans- as helpless fools in need of constant government help has resulted in a permanent minority underclass. The good thing is that it serves as a good issue to use to whip up rage and division and money from The Sheeple, so they never question their betters in their chosen political party!
Sorry, I doubt Ron Paul gives a crap about the fate of black people. Don''t like him, don''t trust him.
Hey Op, some of us know what is coming. It is going to be class warfare and ultimately we peons will win. There are simply more of us.
R18- I remember seeing that film a few years ago, but watched it again to refresh the lesson. It is a great intro to the scheme of fiat currency and the Federal Reserve.\
R34, glad you agree. Google Ron Paul and learn more about Austrian economics and you''ll understand the economic shit our leaders have created.\
Did you know that they are the only school of economic theory that predicted and explained the current crisis, starting back in 2003?\
Thanks for the support guys- a few years ago liberal economic theory got you banned from datalounge- glad to see more people are beginning to embrace it!
Well, that''s the whole point, R7. You''re right politics is corrupt; therefore it''s our job to keep those we elect accountable, and in check. We were so easily distracted by the bread and circus, not to mention our own greed, that we allowed this to happen.%0D\
The sad thing is that most people are so brainwashed and so willing to let others think for them that these monsters will get away with their heinous plot to take over the world...and yes, THAT IS THEIR PLAN. %0D\
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They pretty much have absolute power right the fuck now.
Right on R39\
One of the ways they keep us distracted is by pretending that elections matter. As long as they can keep the "party faithful" on the same page then they can change the details, and nobody can compete. The elite keep the two major parties bickering over petty bullshit while they rape the economy. It''s worked well for 40+ years.\
The problem is that just electing "the right person" won''t change the system, because the system itself- based on blood, lies and statistics- is corrupt at the core. Giving someone the power to shoot you and expecting them to behave is NOT a recipe for a prosperous and peaceful society.\
Government needs to be devolved to the lowest levels, and people should be free to do as they wish as long as they didn''t hurt anyone else.\
RPT=dead wrong. The reason democracy doesn''t work is non-participation by the public over a period of many years, especially by libertarians. You can''t have a democracy if people don''t take their civic responsibilities seriously.%0D
OP, you phrased your question wrong. It should have stated "that our government is completely corrupt."%0D\
The charade is pretty much over, I think. I''m not sure what more it will take for citizens to rise up, and not in teabag, born again xtian way, but rational, intelligent adults saying we''ve had enough.
R41 you also can''t have a Democracy in a Republic.
RON PAUL IS THE BIGGEST PHONY THERE IS.%0D\
Ron Paul is being trotted out by the same establishment that''s plundering our economy. The gold standard will only concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few even more than it already is. %0D\
The reason why right-winged aristocrats hired the snake oil salesman, Ron Paul, to promote the gold standard is that gold locks in the power and wealth of those who already have ALL THE POWER AND WEALTH, locking everyone else OUT! %0D\
Here''s the thing. The so-called pay-triot conspiracy movement all promote and try to sell gold, and Ron Paul. Take Alex Jones. 90% of what he says is true, however his ultimate agenda is gold.%0D\
R44, I fear your blind hatred of Ron Paul precludes rational discussion, but the man has been in and out of politics - all while practicing medicine, often for free to those unable to pay- and has never once violated his principles. Every vote he has taken has been in favor of protecting liberty over government power. Every. Single. Vote.
He is nothing like the empty suits of Romney and Obama, nor like the empty heads of Palin and Bachman.
If we don't do something about our money system, the dollar is going to be worthless- that's why we need an end to legal tender laws. If merchants and banks could choose which to take- gold notes, dollars, francs- without red-tape then the dollar would soon show its worth. Then we could have an accurate accounting of the US debts and liabilities.
Gold is only worth anything because people BELIEVE it to be worth something! But, so is the dollar. Unlike a dollar, you can't counterfeit a gold nugget, but you can print trillions of dollars. That is why gold will eventually return to being the primary base of money. I'm really glad I got "scammed" by Ron Paul and his pals back in 2000 when gold was +/-350 an oz! At this rate, some gold coins will allow me to retire in 10 years!
RPT, I suspect you are Ron Paul or on his payroll.%0D\
[quote]There''s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.... The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation." - Ron Paul, Congressional Record, 13 March 2001%0D\
paypal accepted, OP
Because something happened first (civil rights legislation), then something else happened (increased poverty among minority members) does not show causation.
Everyone in this country except the top one percent has gotten poorer since 1970.
Our representatives since LBJ have not been busy enforcing civil rights legislation with the funding, police power, and new laws that would have provided the fulfillment of a decent start towards civil rights.
The civil rights legislation of the 60s was never designed to be a cure. It was designed to be a first step in a long treatment. What we got was a diagnosis, the first round of treatment, then a directive to stop making a fuss.
Over the last 40 years our legislatures, federal and state, have been busy passing law after law redirecting power and money to this top one percent, and zilch for the average person.
If one tenth of one percent of the money that went to the rich went into enforcement of civil rights laws instead of into the pockets of lobbyists writing laws designed to counteract the civil rights legislation, then we might have full employment, free education, socialized health care, and decent retirement for our aging population.
If one tenth of one percent of that money had gone, as an example, to providing free education from daycare through college for anyone who needed the money, this society would have been completely different.
The premise of libertarian thought is that individual freedom and individual responsibility is the best guarantee of individual freedom.
Is that a fair summation? That everyone working for his own good will create a good society?
Here is where libertarian thought runs into trouble. Here is the issue they dance around and can never answer.
To have a fair system that rewards the individual for his own success as he follows his own desires, then everyone should have the same starting line. Otherwise, those who start with an edge -- say white skin or well-to-do parents, will have a bit of an advantage, and those who start with a whole lot more will start with a huge lead.
How do we arrange things so that everyone gets off to an equal start?
To achieve a libertarian society, do we first have extreme government intervention so that all property is reassigned equally, then it's off to the races, everyone starts equal, and devil take the hindmost?
Do libertarians support that sort of wealth redistribution? If not, why not? If they don't, how do they suggest setting the same starting line for everyone?
Suppose it were possible to even things out for the start of some sort of mythical even-handed race through life. So off we go, racing against each other. What happens to people who stumble?
Suppose one very able person working in his own self-interest, assembles a large team of employees who dedicate their lives and their self-interest to create a successful business, then disaster strikes -- a flood wipes out the work of a lifetime for workers and their dependents.
Do they then get help to get back to the starting line? What about their children?
How about the next generation? Does the government, enforce the same starting line for each young person? Otherwise, the parent who is successful is going to pass on part of his success to his child who should have to prove his worthiness on his own.
Who makes the decision about what help to give to those who need to catch up? If no one steps up, are they justified in seeking self-help, forming a coalition that seeks power? If not why not?
That is what happens when people get shut out of a reward system and they conclude that it is not their fault. They organize to fight back Then the whole system may collapse -- taking down the front runners as well as the laggards.
Is that kind of conflict OK with libertarians?
It won't do to say that less government will make things better eventually. A government that can do something and stands aside rewards the power that exists now -- that inaction can be the most damaging act possible to society.
I perceive that we have destroyed those individual powers which were able, single-handed, to cope with tyranny; but it is the government alone that has inherited all the privileges of which families, guilds, and individuals have been deprived; to the power of a small number of persons, which if it was sometimes oppressive was often conservative, has succeeded the weakness of the whole community.
The division of property has lessened the distance which separated the rich from the poor; but it would seem that, the nearer they draw to each other, the greater is their mutual hatred and the more vehement the envy and the dread with which they resist each other's claims to power; the idea of right does not exist for either party, and force affords to both the only argument for the present and the only guarantee for the future.
The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers without their faith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adopted the doctrine of self-interest as the rule of his actions without understanding the science that puts it to use; and his selfishness is no less blind than was formerly his devotion to others.
If society is tranquil, it is not because it is conscious of its strength and its well-being, but because it fears its weakness and its infirmities; a single effort may cost it its life. Everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure. The desires, the repinings, the sorrows, and the joys of the present time lead to nothing visible or permanent, like the passions of old men, which terminate in impotence.
We have, then, abandoned whatever advantages the old state of things afforded, without receiving any compensation from our present condition.
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
To think that anyone else in government is any less racist than Ron Paul is ridiculous. He''s the only politician I''ve ever heard (outside of Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis) who called out the Prison Industrial Complex as the new Jim Crow. I hate that he''s weird about abortion rights but if I look at any politician I''ve (usually wrongly) admired thro the years, they have a lot of giant faults.
"That is becasue the CIA damned near successfully killed Reagan in March of 1981 and installed Bush in the White House eight years ahead of schedule. George H. W. Bush has been a constant presence in the executive branch from then to now. Clinton was his boy and so is Obama."%0D
The CIA did not try to kill Reagan, a derranged and mentally ill man did Mr Conspiracy- G H W Bush and Clinton fought a pretty bitter election in "92, did you vote in that election Mr. Conspiracy? The became collegial after they both left the White House and boy, are their post presidencies different-could not be any more different. %0D
All the whipping up of rhetorical black clouds and evil powers behind the puppets (being the pols) does not substitute for voting for those pols you believe will not cotow to the powerful in the world. In this country the electorate still holds a helluva lot of power if they choose to. Last election they altogether abanodoned that power, and in general cede it far more than our fellow Western democracies- by not voting with excuses like the are all the same, they are all puppets and people like me a naive- hardly, I know all about power- money and the vote. Money is being used, the vote is not.%0D
While you may think Obama is a puppet, he is not of course. He chooses to listen to corporate America and at times he chooses not to. Vote for or against him or another candidate who represents your point of view. But do vote. I wonder if RPT and others who's cups run over with polemics vote in each and every election, pay as close attention to local as well as national elections?%0D
Sometimes I wish the libertarians would have to display some knowledge of the great political and economic thinkers before we had to listen to them.
Show us that they know the great thinkers who saw societies in turmoil, wrote about what they saw, and reached conclusions. Then come to us and explain how those giants of intellectual history got it wrong and that libertarianism will work -- no government is good government
Now they are getting elected to office.
I am not saying you have to agree with De Tocqueville, Adam Smith, or Marx. But you should know them.
If you disagree with the great political thinkers, you should be able state their facts, reasoning and conclusions in the best light possible and then refute them.
The way it is now, when the libertarians come on board, all connection to reality is lost immediately.
They think it is an admirable fact about they advocate a system that no one has ever tried, that has never worked, and there is no articulable manner of putting the ideals to work in a society.
None of that matters to the libertarians.
It as though we live in a community that faces a terrible health emergency. As the call goes out for people to donate blood, for medical people to assemble at necessary places, for people to donate supplies, a bunch of jokers run around saying that they have an idea:
"Let's everyone rub crystals all over our body's and be sure we read our horoscopes."
It cheapens the political discourse. It is the same as when we let creation theory into the classroom -- and no one calls them on it either -- both these cockamamie view points are put forward and listen to as though there is substance there.
Well, there isn't.
Here is what the media should be asking: "OK, Everbody for himself. That's the theory. How does that work in precise instances? How has it worked in the history of human organizations?"
"OK -- creationism. Why don't ancient texts, including the Bible mention dinosaurs?"
No, that would be taking sides, right? Every body is entitle to his opinion.
If everybody has an equal opportunity to be heard, then he who can afford the biggest megaphone wins.
I''ve been awake for years, OP.\
But what exactly do you propose we do about it?\
I''m all ears.
Starve the beast. It''s really that simple.
Civil disobedience, for starters. Organized disruption. Show of solidarity and numbers. Are you in? And for what, exactly? \
But, OP, please don''t be such a presumptuous twat. You''re not as awake as you like to think, and we''re not asleep.
Charlie, honey, you are a terrible, terrible writer. Good lord!
When did "Eclectic Anarchist" (gag) become "RPT"?%0D\
Did I miss something?
How old are you, charlie? 12?
[quote]The CIA did not try to kill Reagan, a derranged and mentally ill man did \
At Jodie Foster''s behest!
How dearly the American public clings to the soothing myth of the Lone Nut Assassin.
Anyone who believes humans have actually flown to the moon and landed on it is a fool. Gotta love how NASA made it look like there was wind on the moon blowing the flag in their fake photos.
I hope he is not...\
I want to hear about the wind as well. \
Why would there not be wind on the moon?
I''ve known this for decades OP. I realized it during the Clinton years when for the first time we had a Democrat in the WH and then Democrats in the House and Senate who were on the same side as the Republicans when it came to taking from the poor to give to the rich and deregulating the hell out of everything. Of course Obama has taken that to new heights and yes, much more blatantly.%0D\
My question is there something we can do about it or is it too late?%0D
For the idiots, here''s the flag on the moon explanation, directly from Nasa (see link).%0D\
[quote]The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense.%0D\
"Common sense," of course, tends to be lacking in many people.
The American government always has been controled by big busniss capitalism who present a puppet show called "The two party system" Who do you think is behind the Iraq war? Who do you think was behind NAFTA? The capitalist class. Makes no difference who''s in the white house.
In France when they get pissed off, they shut down the whole country.\
When was the last time the American People did that? Huh?
r63, that doesn''t really look like wind to me. The top of the flag is straight (not waving).\
I have no idea how flag material would behave in a weightless environment after being unrolled, but that photo makes sense to me.
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
If you want it to be more corrupt by an order of magnitude, vote Republican.
If you want there to be SOME hope of things getting better (however slim), vote Democratic.
Alas, those are your only two choices at this point in time.
Yes, R74- Obama has been a WONDERFUL prez- ended wars, stopped intrusions into our civil liberties and fought the banks and big corporations.
Please vote for democrats this year! Please! We suck less than they do!
All governments are corrupt.
That's why they should be as small as possible.
OP is in junior high school. ONTD or L-Chat may be more your speed, OP, you know, full of very young people who think they've just discovered something no one else have ever thought of before.
Thanks, r73, just watched it.
What do you think of all these government agencies buying a scary amount of hollow point bullets?
R63 -- I remember Walter Cronkite telling a nation enthralled that the flag could wave thanks to a wire through he top edge.
Sadly, I understand the flag was blown over by the LEM's liftoff engines
R75, He's been more than impressive; especially since his election has obviously mobilized rabid-dog Repugs.
So stop trying to suppress our vote.
It's not happening.
R81- what was most impressive? The escalation of the Mideast war, the authorization to kill US citizens, the domestic drone use, the bank bailouts or the way he has embraced big corporations?
Our government is fearfully corrupt because people like these libertarians won't take a grown-up approach to politics.
You're kidding, right, r76? Governments and government spending/deficits are HUGEST during supposedly "conservative" administrations.
R83, libertarians realize that politics is just a form of theft.
R84, why do you think Ron Paul energized so many people, left and right? He was actually a threat to the big banks, big military contractors, big medicine, etc.
Libertarians are operating on a fantasy planet with their own madeup rules. This makes it impossible to argue with them.
Start quoting facts that resemble the planet I live on, and maybe we can have a discussion.
Libertarians are the ones who are attempting to destroy this country. Who are all the people behind this plot? Ayn Rand Freaks, that's who.
The fantasy world you live in- where government is good and people are bad- is sad, sick and twisted.
[quote] R81- what was most impressive? The escalation of the Mideast war, the authorization to kill US citizens, the domestic drone use, the bank bailouts or the way he has embraced big corporations?
The bank bailouts occurred in 2008 under Bu$h.
And, last time I checked, President Obama ended the war in Iraq.
The second report, in the Post, informs us that the U.S. is significantly ramping up the number of CIA personnel and covert Special Operations forces in order to make up for reducing the American military and diplomatic footprint. These added covert personnel will be distributed in safe houses in urban centers all across the country. This represents a new way to exert U.S. power, but it is betting on the Iraqis not noticing the increased covert personnel. Really? This is a bad decision as it contradicts the reasons for the decision to reduce embassy staff.
The Iraqis have suffered for nine years as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation. The economic, educational and political systems in Iraq have been destroyed. Sectarianism, contrary to the belief of many in the U.S., has become the order of the day since the invasion. A significant percentage of Iraqis do not like us and do not want us to stay in Iraq. No Iraqi politicians want to openly be identified as pro-American.
Animosity toward the U.S. is on the rise because of the heavy U.S. presence in Iraq. Our projects in Iraq function to serve our interests, such as building and training security forces to keep the Iraqis in check (building the infrastructure for the promotion of democracy has taken a back seat). We have made sure that Iraq, for the foreseeable future, will depend on us for security equipment and spare parts, heavy industrial machinery, and banking. We built Iraq's security forces but made sure it has no air force. And the half-hearted democracy we built is a shambles; graft and corruption are still rampant.
OP the government of American has always been and will always be a government designed for the enrichment of the wealthy. The entire history of this country has been for the gathering of wealth at the expense of someone else. The expansion of the West. The mining operations in Colorado and California. The shipping empires of the Northeast. Slavery in the South. The founding fathers were all middle class or wealthy men who wanted to take control of the natural resources of North America and put it in their hands since the British certainly didn't know what to do with it. There was lip service to the majority of the people who believed they participated in government but it was a lie. It still is a lie!
Only the details change.
The average human being is greedy, petty, uncreative, easily distracted and intimidated.
A flash of titty on the tv, some religious screaming on the radio, a boogeyman from far away who wants to eat your children, stage lights to make your great leader look majestic, and 2 goons per 1,000 people = control.
If it's always that easy, and it is, of course a handful of people are going to control everyone else, to their benefit.
the 2.6 %
I'm not a paying member of DL, so I'm not sure what members see when they sign in, but there's an ad from a Rand Paul group asking people to sign a "Right to Work" petition ie. legalize slave labor.
R92, you better pray.
The financial system is in BAD shape. Any of a hundred events will eventually produce a run on the dollar, and misery for all but the top .01%
That is not the "average person" R96, it's the 1% without exception.
No, R99. The "1%" is, by and large, composed of good people.
It is the .01% that control 90% of the wealth that are sociopaths that use the government to control us.
''When we talk about the process, then, we are talking, increasingly, not about 'the democratic process,' or the general mechanism affording the citizens of a state a voice in its affairs, but the reverse: a mechanism seen as so specialized that access to it is correctly limited to its own professionals, to those who manage policy and those who report on it, to those who run the polls and those who quote them, to those who ask and those who answer the questions on the Sunday shows, to the media consultants, to the columnists, to the issues advisers, to those who give the off-the-record breakfasts and those who attend them; to that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of public life.''
It is this narrative -- part fable, part zeitgeist, part code, all ideology -- that Didion synthesizes from convention oratory, cable chat, stump speeches, bull sessions, tell-all memoirs, the dailies, weeklies and transcripts; the white noise, the ''rapture of the feed'' and the shadow on the scan. As in her postcolonial essays and novels, she condenses slanguages to a sort of antipoetry. But instead of dummy corporations, phantom payrolls, pipelines and pacifications, or Black Flights, Tiger Ops, assets and extractions, what we hear is all about game plans, trade-offs, talking points, wimp factors, how it will play, staying on message, positioning, Willie Horton and Sister Souljah: ''She used to be an issues person but now she's involved in the process.''
Translated, this means that in the scrum for votes among the affluent, educated, suburban and wired, those who are ''poor, black, Hispanic, urban, homeless, hungry and other people and problems out of favor in Middle America'' will no longer get the ''freebies'' they got from ''mushy'' liberals in the 60's and 70's. The gatekeepers, border guards, hierophants, jackal-heads and flacks who tend the eternal flame of a safe center ''in which both parties are committed to calibrating the precise level of incremental tinkering required to get elected'' aren't interested anymore in civil liberties, organized labor, affirmative action, due process or child care. They oppose all entitlements but their own, like tax exemptions for mortgage interest. And they're disappointed by, even disdainful of, the rest of us because we didn't dump Clinton when they told us to, as if we failed to grasp that ours is ''a vassal relationship.''
Now, Didion is no left-wing herbivorous feminazi. The child of conservative Republicans, she began her career writing articles in the 1950's for National Review. In ''Political Fictions,'' she tells us that she voted ''ardently'' for Goldwater in 1964 and would have gone on doing so in every election thereafter. Elsewhere she has explained that hers was a generation ''distrustful of political highs . . . convinced that the heart of darkness lay not in some error of social organization but in man's own blood.'' If her novels are about wounded women in hot places making strange choices with calamitous consequences, her essays over the years -- approving less of Joan Baez than of John Wayne, finding more fault in feminists and Hollywood liberals than in mall culture or even the Manson groupie Linda Kasabian -- suggest Hawthorne as he was read by Melville: ''For in certain moods, no man can weigh this world without throwing in something, somehow like Original Sin, to strike the uneven balance. . . . This black conceit pervades him through and through.''
The candidacy of Jill Stein is opening more eyes than you realize.
Government and corrupt are synonyms.
And Libertarians are stone-cold idiots.
Go read your insane scribbling, R105. There's your explanation.
Well, turning on troll-dar on your R105 post and reading your rantings on this thread certainly supports R104's point where you're concerned.
The Goldman Sachs unit Goldman Sachs Asset Management has hired Andrew "Buddy" Donohue, a former head of the division of investment management at the Securities and Exchange Commission, as deputy general counsel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters.
It's always nice to hire your former regulators.
And the new head of the Bank of England is a former Goldman Sucks guy.
They know how to play the game!
The PSY scandal: singing about killing people v. constantly doing it
Whatever else one wants to say, the US is a country that, for more than a decade, has loudly and continuously declared itself to be a "nation at war". It's not "at war" in any one county, but in many countries around the globe.
In the last four years alone, it has used drones to end people's lives in six predominantly Muslim country (probably more). Under its Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader, it has repeatedly wiped out entire families (including just this week), slaughtered dozens of children at a time, targeted and killed people rescuing and grieving its victims, and either deliberately or recklessly dropped bombs on teenagers (including its own citizens), then justified it with the most foul and morally deranged rationale.
It's sick, R110.
They want to paint Bu$h and the Repukes as evil, but refuse to acknowledge that their own party and prez are just as bad.
Ron Paul called for ending ALL the wars, overseas and at home. He also wanted to restore the civil liberties we have lost since 2001. And end the war on drugs. And stop the bailouts of the big banks and powerful corporations.
But he was EVIL!!!
Tell us what's Area 51.
[quote]But he was EVIL!!!
No, just stupid. And economically illiterate. And wrong in all of his economic predictions for the past 30 years or more.
Oh, and a hypocrite, since he routinely violated his own philosophies, e.g., in the case of abortion.
Ron Paul, in 1981: "I believe such a standard [i.e., the gold standard] to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse.
Ron Paul, in 2011: "Inflation will hit 50% "in the next couple of years."
Ron Paul, repeatedly and consistently wrong for more than 30 years!
And racist too!
Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.
But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.
It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.
PBS Frontline’s stunning report last night on why the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any Wall Streeter involved in the financial meltdown doesn’t just implicitly indict a political and financial press that utterly abdicated its responsibility to cover such questions. It also — and as importantly — exposes the genuinely radical jurisprudential ideology that Wall Street campaign contributors have baked into America’s “justice” system. Indeed, after watching the piece, you will understand that the word “justice” belongs in quotes thanks to an Obama administration that has made a mockery of the name of a once hallowed executive department.
The Frontline report is titled “The Untouchables,” a tongue-in-cheek salute to how that term once referred to those heroes who fought organized crime and yet now appropriately describes those doing the criminal organizing. Rooted in historical comparison, it contrasts how the Reagan administration prosecuted thousands of bankers after the now-quaint-looking S&L scandal with how the Obama administration betrayed the president’s explicit promise to “hold Wall Street accountable” and refused to prosecute a single banker connected to 2008′s apocalyptic financial meltdown.
The piece by PBS reporter Martin Smith looks at how Obama has driven federal prosecutions of financial crimes down to a two-decade low. It also documents the rampant and calculated mortgage securities fraud perpetrated by the major Wall Street banks, who, not coincidentally, were using some of the profits they made to become among President Obama’s biggest campaign donors.