A few things that caught my attention (and apparently no one elses) as I killed time with the comedy show CNN called the a debate, whilst awaiting the start of the Red Sox/Yankee game;
How is it that a candidate for president of our country can openly espouse his desire to move our country towards Marxism and the news networks don't even mention it? For those who missed it here is the exchange I am talking about.
Wolf Blitzer: "What should be done about skyrocketing gasoline prices?"
Senator Chris Dodd : "When oil goes beyond $40 a barrel, those dollars ought to be returned to consumers in a rebate or plowed back into research to develop alternative energy technologies."
So let me get this straight, Chris Dodd is now promoting Marxism to help our economy? Make no mistake about it, government confiscation of private enterprise revenue is Marxism plain and simple. If Exxon (for example) sells oil for over $40 a barrel Dodd believes that the government should confiscate that money as if it were it's own. Chris Dodd is not a neophyte. He understands that the price of a barrel of oil is market driven. He knows that right now at this moment China will pay $60 a barrel for as much oil as it can buy.
A question for Senator Dodd, (Isn't this Blitzer's job???) Which oil companies, do you think Senator, is going to sell their oil here for $40 a barrel when they have a standing offer for 50% more for as much as they are willing to sell? Somehow I figured that this stunning statement of policy by Dodd would be mentioned by a news organization. I mean, to me anyway, when someone who wants to be president casually mentions that he wants to destroy the free market system that our economy is built on, that might merit a sentence or two... Somewhere Marx is grinning
Next comes John (Does my hair look good?) Edwards, reiterates his brain fart from two weeks ago. In case anyone missed the first one he said it again, ""There is no war on terror. It's a sham, a bumper sticker slogan" This on the very day that a plot to blow up JFK airport in New York is uncovered. The same Kennedy airport a few exits down the Jersey Pike from Fort Dix where another (not) terrorist plot was foiled last week. Al Qaeda is fighting in Lebanon, Islamists attack government troops in Thailand and a terrorist cell in Spain is uncovered and arrested. According to the hiarcut, this is not terrorism on a global scale. I guess it is some over zealous international game of jackass.....
Next Obama suggests that America let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora because we were distracted by the war in Iraq. Of course the fact that Tora Bora happened in December of 2001 and we invaded Iraq in MMarch of 2003 doesn't warrant anyone pointing out this blatant lie.
I don't want to forget poor Dennis Kucinich, the poor sap, was like the red headed step child at the family reunion. He was not even in frame over half the time and when he was in frame it seemed he was always waving his hand like a second grader who really needed a bathroom pass. He did however manage to vomit out this gem that went totally unanswered. " People want to love America again.." Personally I thought it would have been kinda cool if just one of the candidates on stage had stepped froward at that point and said something like, "I love America Dennis". Some fantasies are not meant to be realized....
Before I get called a hater I was genuinely impressed with much of what former senator Gravell said. It was refreshing to hear someone actually say what they believe and not what they think will play the best for votes. Of course this will eliminate him almost immediately from consideration.
Lastly, Hillary Clinton, how sweet it is for Her majesty herself to utter one of the rare truths that pass her lips, that simultaneously blasts one of the major party lines her followers have been chanting for over a year. Hillary Clinton actually said that our "war on terror" (the one Edwards says doesn't exist) HAS made the country SAFER. Imagine that Hillary Clinton and I agreeing on something. The apocalypse must be upon us.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 127
I have had the opportunity over my life to speak face to face with many candidates and all of them spit out the same economical "rich vrs. poor" scenerios. Take from one and give to the other. But for the first time in my political watching life I have finally found one candidate that addresses the importance of the middle class - working class, and for the first time ever I've been impressed by a candidate.
And I agree with you, that it is a shame that Kucinich was glossed over the way he was during the debates because I believe that he could have brought some real political meat to the table.
I was in a group of 1000 people who heard him make this and that promise to help secure the infrastructure of New England's threatened telecommunications infrastructure - which is currently for sale to a weakling of a telcom company - and I thought "oh yeah, that'll happen, we've heard these kind of promises in an election rotation before". But you know what, he went out and he did what he said he would do. He went back to Washington and got a securities investigation going against these two corporations within days of telling us he would.
He didn't wait until the election. He didn't string us along with that promise hoping to gain our votes. He took action as soon as he was made aware of this growing problem in New England that would cripple our technological future, but 3800 jobs of middle class Americans.
So although the debates are great way to get a glimpse of how the candidates stand on predetermined issues but when you see one take action that doesn't involve some sort of five year plan attached, a voter should take notice and speak up when a man like that is glossed over in such a public forum.
Thank you for pointing out the inequal treatment of a real public servant.
And I bet that you think I'm voting for Kucinich after my little rant, the truth is, I'm still undecided. I wait, like many in NH, until I know as much as I feel I can know before I make my decision. But I did feel a need to point out how impressed with the action of a man the press doesn't report.
You're right on point with this - For if these statements - collectively and individually, are not representative of marxism, then I don't know what is.
Do Americans read any of the old communist debates from the 20s-late 30s? There's alot to be found on the i'net and in books. I would suggest that everyone do so, and then come back to this article and re-read it. Doing this would make the nape hairs stand on the neck of any liberty loving American citizen.
No, you should not fear being called a "hater" when all you've done is present the truth backed by evidence.
Bumper sticker slogans for the great unwashed masses.
But seriously, always a pleasure to read you Chris. I enjoyed this article, especially the last line. Thank you.....t
That's Law and Order not Marxism.
Good writing.
John "does my hair look good" Edwards was a big disappointment to me as well. He came out swinging against his own when bush and company have given him so much to be angry about! I don't know which of his advisors gave him the "bumper sticker" crap...but I hope he has fired them by now! Americans will buy that like they buy he needs a $400.00 haircut! He can go to Super-Cuts with the rest of us!
As for Gravel....that man was a raving lunatic! I hope he is on meds for his condition and lots of them! If there was ever a man that needed Prozac...he is one! He reminded me Of Mikey...he hates everything!
4 years of Dennis anything would make me weep! He simply whines when he speaks with a touch of a lisp! It is so annoying that I never get to actually hear what he says!
Hillary looked in control....she stayed calm and did not allow herself to get in the fray. Which I think is what voters are saying...stop the negative campaigning!
Obama looked good as well...he did snap back at GoodHair...which I'm glad he did! The problem that I have with Obama is he is just too new...no experience. Same problem dubya had! Look where that got us! He will be a good candidate some day...just not in 08!
I agree with Edwards...the you can not have a war on a concept. Oh, of course there is terrorism, but the war on terror, like the war on drugs or poverty, is just a slogan.
Forget Marx and remember economics 101, the market is a reflector of information available to buyers and sellers. No matter how unpleasant $60+ a barrel oil may be, the market is trying to tell us something--the days of cheap, abundant and reliably supplied oil are over and we have to adjust accordingly. Even at $3+ a gallon, I see no stop in the SUV's lining up to fill their tanks. Also with the exception of Canada, the oil producing nations have unstable regimes that would love to give Uncle Sam a kick in the pants.
Yes, the threats both economic, Marxist (Chavez) and radical Islamic to our oil supplies are real and won't go away by issuing rebates (although R&D on alternative fuel will help). We have to grow up as a nation and make the hard decisions that will get us out of this mess. So far, I haven't heard any leading candidates, either Democrat or Republican give us a concrete plan to do so.
As for gas prices, I'd personally like to see them continue to rise, and perhaps even be accompanied by a hefty tax. The sooner people can no longer afford to purchase it, the sooner it'll be done away with, and the sooner we can find ways to eliminate our dependence on the oil industry altogether.
Susan, whoa there I haven't "opened my mind up to Hillary". I remain convinced that she is the most dangerous person in American politics. She is the real life Manchurian Candidate. I was merely pointing out the irony of her admitting that the US IS safer now than before the war on terror and how one of the few times she is honest (which happens with approximately the same frequency as a Halley's Comet visit.) she contradicts one of the constantly repeated refrains of her most devoted followers, which is that we are NOT safer.
JAck thanks for adding to the discussion, points taken and appreciated.
Sylvia, thanks for your service it appreciated more than you realize
PJ welcome aboard, I'll cut you some slack before I break out the heavy artillery. Let's just say. It seems like when a Democrat changes their position, it is because they have evolved and become enlightened, but when a Republican does it , it is inevitably called a flip flop.......Get used to seeing Romney he is going to be the next president barring some major unforseen development.
Penny if Edwards is in fact right, then start sizing yourself for a burka and forget about personal hygiene, (apparently Allah likes his women hidden and his men dirty) because we are doomed as a culture to being eradicated by that "concept"
Karen baby!!! Thanks for stopping by. I'm gonna resist the over riding urge to make double entendre comments on your comment about women changing positions etc......Thanks for stopping by........I know I owe you the 5 things article.... soon, I promise
Bill all true but they usually hide it by calling increasing revenues, or "making the rich pay their fair share"
Terry, Hiya honey! Thanks for the comment. If john is the worst thing I get called this week I'll be really really really happy. Connectivity issues should be resolved and I will be more generally available by this end of this week.
Tanya , Joe, Thanks for contributing keep in touch!
Jai, I am hoping with all my heart and soul you are kidding.............
Micehlle, Kathleen , Lera, you guys(gals) are great and thanks for reading and being involved from day one!
CS I said I felt bad Dennis, I don't take him serioulsy as a candidate. I think he is probaly very well suited for exactly where he is right now. I find him a bit to flaky to have his finger "on the button". As a matter of fact I don't think he should even told that there is a button and if he knows about it, don't tell him what it does......
Gina, Thanks so much for the kind words. I think as someone from another country, you bring a wonderful and fresh perspective view to things many Americans have become numb to.
Again, as painful as it will be, this is also a necessary move, and the sooner the economic collapse is brought upon us, the sooner we can move to rebuild this nation, hopefully far from the grasp of the plutocrats. Trust me, the elements that will destroy our economy were in place long before gas prices became an issue.
"I don't hold much hope for Breckboy Edward"
I find it truly bizarre that the "moral, ethical, Christian" republicans continue to feel the need to mock and ridicule others for their physical appearance. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that they know deep down that there is simply nothing attractive or appealing about the failed ideology that they embrace.
Yeah, you do. Care to share some of those links for me to review? I guess I've missed every single one in which you've leveled criticism against republicans.
"If I referred to Mitt Romney as a Ken Doll would that make you happy."
No, because you're "not a republican," according to yourself. My comment was referring to how republicans can't seem to help themselves from mocking and ridiculing the physical appearance of their political opponents. Having you, a self-proclaimed NON-republican (you're in strong company...very few will admit to being one these days), make a derogatory comment about a republican candidate's physical appearance would do nothing to assuage my feelings of how republicans seem obsessed with mocking physical appearances.
Chelsea Clinton was a "dog," John Kerry was "Herman Munster" or "horseface," and John Edwards is TOO attractive, so he is a "breck boy." It's a rather stunning display of the "right's" ability to carry political discourse in a rational, mature manner.
"You didn't seem to have this concern on my Rudy Guilliani is a thug article."
Did you make fun of his physical appearance? I didn't see the article.
I answered, even though I'm a libertarian, because I'm the one who called him Breck Boy.
For the record I don't insult president's kids - I never insulted Chelsea Clinton - she's a smart kid with a bright future. Or the Bush daughters who are also great kids with bright futures.
This is my article on Guiliani. While it is true I am leaning towards a republican candidates - he's not exactly a mainstream republican and formerly ran as a libertarian
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977002073
If you really feel the need to find out where I stand on things and why bring religion into political debate isn't something I tend to do you can read this one
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976948646
Besides I'm a terrible religious person, everyone knows that already.
Heck, here I even defended Hillary Clinton (which still scares me)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976924122
Here I don't defend Hillary Clinton
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976899511
There are others, but what I'm saying is I have my own mind and think for myself. I'd love to give you my whole political writing history on Gather, but I'm going to get my hair done for a job interview :) - Probably my nails too. Just call me Breck Girl.
So, if Breck is a hairspray, what does calling him "breckboy" have to do with the amount of money he pays for a haircut, and how could that possibly matter to anyone anyway? Do you know how much the other candidates pay for their haircuts as well? Is this really what republicans are passing off as "important issues of the day" lately? No wonder so few people are admitting to being republican.
"Kerry was referred to as Botox Man for his sudden change in appearance."
Interesting. Is this what you're calling Brownbeck now? It appears that he's the latest candidate to make use of the toxin. Btw, I'm sure you know quite well that the more common "pet name" for Kerry by the republicreeps was either "Herman Munster" or "Horseface." And, while we're on the subject, let's not forget how the republipathetic children mocked his heroic military service by wearing purple band aids on their faces during the GOP hatefest convention. Some pretty GD sick folks you mingle with.
"For the record I don't insult president's kids - I never insulted Chelsea Clinton"
The GOP national spokesman, Rush Limbaugh, did this. Classy party. Classy guy.
"While it is true I am leaning towards a republican candidates - he's not exactly a mainstream republican"
That doesn't exactly fortify your comment that you're "not a republican." I do agree with you about him, but I could probably go a bit further. No need to do so, however.
I agree with much of your article on sin and laws, although abortion is not murder. You cannot murder that which is not alive, and an unborn fetus is not a living human being. You also forgot to add under the murder heading that it is entirely legal and widely supported if it is state sponsored capital punishment or illegal and unnecessary wars of aggression.
As for Hillary, I don't consider her worthy of defense, to be honest. She's a typical, self-serving, phony politician.
"Just call me Breck Girl."
Breck makes nail spray, too?
It's not the appearance, it's the vanity that is most amuzing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breck_Shampoo
Chris, keep uncovering the Socialist missteps - they make great comedy.
Good thing there's no such thing as vanity in the republican party. No plastic hair, bad toupe's, botox treatments, varnished backgrounds, or brushed appearances at all there. Just a bunch of good ol' Joe Sixpack's. God, you mindless people are shameless hypocrites.
" Breck makes hair products. shampoos, conditioners, coloring, spray, etc. As a John Edwards supporter you should know this. LOL"
I still don't see why this matters, or why Breck is even involved in discussing a politician at all, regardless of how his/her appearance may be or how much he pays for a haircut.
I want to know what your republican candidates are paying for their haircuts, so I can determine whether or not it should become a hot issue in the campaign, as you people seem to think it is with Edwards. Is there really ANYBODY who believes that ANY multi millionaire is getting $10 Cost Cutter haircuts? And, is there really ANYBODY who believes that it fricking matters? Like I said, it's no damn wonder so few people admit to being republiCON these days. You people truly have NOTHING to run on, do you? How sad, that the "party of Lincoln" has been reduced to discussing hair cuts as a major campaign issue.
"about the Brownbeck thing. I've never paid much attention to him or his haircut."
Botox. Check it out.
" Have you ever noticed that Conservatives can write about the opposition with hilarity,"
I've noticed that "conservatives" (we all know that this filthy, cheap, childish behavior doesn't come from "conservatives") can't seem to focus on issues that matter, and have to continually resort to name calling and focusing on physical attributes. As they say, there are two ways to have the tallest building in town; you can either tear everybody else's down until yours is the only one standing, or you can build yours up so high that it towers above all others. Sadly, the GOP has chosen the former. I guess that's what happens when you've got no issues to campaign on.
"Talk about a difference in attitude"
You got that right. It's truly breath taking. Children vs. adults. Gee...I wonder which would be a better choice to run the country? hmmmmm
" I'm waiting for Fred Thompson to announce his canidacy. Then everyone will be eating HIS dust!"
You're absolutely right, and this just goes to show how terribly weak the GOP field is, doesn't it? Mr. Thompson is known for being a heavily paid lobbyist, and one that helped pave the way for the S&L debacle of the 80's. As a senator, he is remembered as being a rather lazy, ineffective person, who authored but a handful of legislation. He also ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1994, which should really get the loonie toon fundie whackos whipped into a froth. Still, it's entirely foreseeable that he could win the GOP nomination, given how pathetic that field is.
"Talk about a difference in attitude"
You got that right. It's truly breath taking. Children vs. adults. Gee...I wonder which would be a better choice to run the country? hmmmmm
When I was last on Gather, your writing was so much better. What happened?
In answering your question above, the answer is : the Democrats and Republicans are equally inept. Liberals don't seem to have viable answers. They have answers, but they assume we have unlimited amounts of money. So it falls on the long-time leaders of this country, the conservatives, to quietly run the joint. Given that there are so many loud, blustering, and really well-funded George Soros Left Wingers out there these days, its a wonder that this Union has stayed together.
I just chuckle when I hear all those angry Liberals/Left Wingers say they could do it better. They can't. They had their chance in the early 90's - and then Newt Gingrich deposed them for being part of the problem.
Be more specific, and I'll attempt to address your concern.
"Liberals don't seem to have viable answers."
Be more specific. What issues have you found democrats/liberals/progressives to have no viable answers on? I find the progressive ideals to be much in line with what the majority of Americans favor. I'm curious to see which you disagree with.
"they assume we have unlimited amounts of money."
Excuse me? Democrats feel this? Let's see...The ONLY balanced budget to EVER appear on the ledger of the US in the past 26 years was produced by a DEMOCRAT, who handed a large and far-reaching surplus to the incoming republican, who immediately demolished that surplus and then proceeded to rack up yet another $3 trillion in DEBT SPENDING, in order to grow the size of the federal government by a whopping 25%!!!
But, it's DEMOCRATS who don't know how to manage the treasury, according to you? Interesting. I HAVE to see where you get this belief. Please, do share, and try to remember that nearly every penny of our current $9 trillion in debt came from "conservative" presidents.
"So it falls on the long-time leaders of this country, the conservatives, to quietly run the joint."
Unfortunately, the conservatives no longer have a political party in this country. They've been run out of town by the religious whackos and the neocon lunatics. Welcome to 2007.
"Given that there are so many loud, blustering, and really well-funded George Soros Left Wingers"
Name one, please. And then, name the rightwing plutocrat-funded organizations as well. I'll get you started...the largest rigthwing donors are Rupert Murdoch and Rev. Moon. Now, go find out how many massive rightwing organizations, media outlets, and "think tanks" these folks fund. Then, we'll compare the Soros-funded liberal organizations with the Murdoch/Moon-funded wingnut organizations. Fair?
"I just chuckle when I hear all those angry Liberals/Left Wingers say they could do it better. They can't. "
Yeah, the 90's really sucked hard, didn't they? With all of that awful peace and prosperity, and such. What a horrible period for this nation and the world. Far better to have the loonie toon fundies and neocons run it. We're SO much better off now than then.
"Given that there are so many loud, blustering, and really well-funded George Soros Left Wingers"
Name one, please. And then, name the rightwing plutocrat-funded organizations as well. I'll get you started...the largest rigthwing donors are Rupert Murdoch and Rev. Moon. Now, go find out how many massive rightwing organizations, media outlets, and "think tanks" these folks fund. Then, we'll compare the Soros-funded liberal organizations with the Murdoch/Moon-funded wingnut organizations. Fair?
Considering that George Soros himself was convicted of insider trading, you're not exactly asking me to move a mountain here. He's dirty from day one.
As a 14 year old in Hungary, he helped the authorities steal land and property from those on their way to death camps.
As far as the "loud, blustering, and really well-funded George Soros Left Wingers" I referenced : the worst is probably MoveOn.org. However, he has an orchestrated finance arm that funds all kinds of extremely Left Wing causes that he doesn't even attempt to deny.
One of his minions, and a Soros financial recipient was Lynne Stewart. The radical lawyer was convicted in 2005 of providing material aid to terrorists and lying to investigators in connection with her representation of 'The Blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman.
If you read up on this guy, you'll find out what a complete and utter scumbag he is.
Be more specific, and I'll attempt to address your concern.
Maybe I had rose colored glasses on back then, but you seemed to be much sharper and a lot more concise with your points. I don't really know how you'll address that now, however.
I noticed you're still banging on the same old drum, without a lot of new ideas. Things have changed politically in the past 6 months, but you seem to be suspended in time.
Be more specific. What issues have you found democrats/liberals/progressives to have no viable answers on? I find the progressive ideals to be much in line with what the majority of Americans favor. I'm curious to see which you disagree with.
I listen to most of the Left Wing establishment and I hear a clinging need to expand Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. to a level that has already brought this nation to the brink of financial ruin.
Entitlements and the interest on entitlement funding is the largest portion of the US Federal Budget each year.............and its growing. I haven't heard one Liberal ever explain to me in viable financial terms how to solve the eventual bankruptcy of Social Security. If you want to inform me, I'm listening.
Please, no cut & paste. Just tell me.
I asked you to name one. You named one that he has nothing to do with. Care to try again? Surely, if he funds "all kinds of extremely left wing causes that he doesn't even attempt to deny," you can name one, can't you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130012
And, how are you coming on that rightwing funded organization list, btw?
"One of his minions, and a Soros financial recipient was Lynne Stewart. The radical lawyer was convicted in 2005 of providing material aid to terrorists and lying to investigators in connection with her representation of 'The Blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman. "
This is probably one of the more foolish things that you've said lately. Lynne Stewart was not a "radical lawyer" who provided "material aid to terrorists." She attempting to do what she had sworn an oath to do, and was railroaded by a corrupt system that refuses to acknowledge constitutional law. Read something besides your rightwing propaganda, will you?
http://www.lynnestewart.org/
"
If you read up on this guy, you'll find out what a complete and utter scumbag he is."
Yeah, he helps black students and fought against apartheid in S. Africa, spent $100 million to help build internet infrastructure in Russian universities, provided $50 to help starving people in Africa, has helped research scientists in Europe, pledged a $420 million Euro endowment to the Central Eurpoean University, and has received honorary doctoral degrees from several universities, including Oxford and Yale. He's a real scum bag.
How's about you share a list of charitable funding that your boys have committed, and we'll compare notes? I would have to think that such "compassionate conservatives" as Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch have billions of dollars to worthy charitable causes over the years. Do share.
"Maybe I had rose colored glasses on back then, but you seemed to be much sharper and a lot more concise with your points. "
I seem to recall you not making much sense and thinking you did back then, too. Maybe, it's not me that's changed at all, but you who's simply forgotten.
"I noticed you're still banging on the same old drum, without a lot of new ideas. Things have changed politically in the past 6 months, but you seem to be suspended in time."
The truth doesn't change, and neither does one who has strength of his convictions.
"I listen to most of the Left Wing establishment and I hear a clinging need to expand Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. to a level that has already brought this nation to the brink of financial ruin"
Please, explain. I want to know specifically what issues you have with democratic proposals, and how you can justify supporting the past six years of incredibly wasteful, incredibly ill-thought debt spending of your beloved GOP. I'd also like to know how much support you see for your idea of ending SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare, and would also like to know what democratic proposals that you've seen that would expand those programs. I guess I haven't seen those.
Also, what "left wing establishment" do you listen to, where you get this rather interesting information that you're espousing. I would have to think that Mr. Brock would be very interested to see the types of misinformation that these "left wing establishment" sources are dishing out.
"I haven't heard one Liberal ever explain to me in viable financial terms how to solve the eventual bankruptcy of Social Security."
Expand the SS witholding tax to include the first $250,000 of income, and either drastically reduce or eliminate benefit payout to anyone earning over that amount. Pretty simple, huh?
Btw, it was republicans who've destroyed this program, with 18 years of borrow and spend policies. In fact, Clinton had plans on the table to not only make it entirely solvent for eternity, but to also repair medicare before it becomes overwhelmed with beneficiaries. Unfortunately, another borrow and spend republican got into office and immediately trashed all budgetary sanity, driving us yet another $3 trillion into debt.
I asked you to name one. You named one that he has nothing to do with. Care to try again? Surely, if he funds "all kinds of extremely left wing causes that he doesn't even attempt to deny," you can name one, can't you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130012
And, how are you coming on that rightwing funded organization list, btw?
Are you attempting to quote Media Matters as your source? LMAO!
I almost said them rather than MoveOn.org! The David Brock organization is such a smear site that I can't even look at it without burning my corneas.
You're hilarious. You're using part of the problem as a source. Both are heavily funded by Soros directly..............or a Soros-funded group. If those aren't good enough, try CREW, Democracy Alliance, Open Society Institute, etc., etc., etc................they guy is like a 10 headed hydra, and a lot more dangerous.
This is probably one of the more foolish things that you've said lately. Lynne Stewart was not a "radical lawyer" who provided "material aid to terrorists." She attempting to do what she had sworn an oath to do, and was railroaded by a corrupt system that refuses to acknowledge constitutional law. Read something besides your rightwing propaganda, will you?
http://www.lynnestewart.org/
This policy you have of quoting the offender as a source is troublesome. You have to go to a neutral site to find your info, if you want to quote it back to me. Try Wikipedia, CNN, CBS, or somebody like that. No Media Matters, no Daily Kos.............I'll just shoot you down if you do that.
Now, to answer your Lynne Stewart 'defense'...........go here and you'll find a reasonably neutral description of who and what Lynne Stewart is..........and was convicted for :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart
You see, THAT is how you use a source, Clark. You don't go and find some site that says what you want it to say. You go and find a neutral source.
And if you read this Wiki definition, THEY call Lynne Stewart a "radical lawyer" and "she provided material aid to terrorists"………….that was the actual charge, not my opinion.
Yeah, he helps black students and fought against apartheid in S. Africa, spent $100 million to help build internet infrastructure in Russian universities, provided $50 to help starving people in Africa, has helped research scientists in Europe, pledged a $420 million Euro endowment to the Central Eurpoean University, and has received honorary doctoral degrees from several universities, including Oxford and Yale. He's a real scum bag.
How's about you share a list of charitable funding that your boys have committed, and we'll compare notes? I would have to think that such "compassionate conservatives" as Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch have billions of dollars to worthy charitable causes over the years. Do share.
Clark, this guy only does things to further his agenda. He does nothing out of sheer altruism. I've read books on him, and although he may appear like a nice guy on the surface, he isn't. Does he do things for publicity value? Not really..........it just looks like it.
I think anyone who has an agenda like Soros' should be monitored...........and I do so. I don't see any "Right Wing" operative with an insidious America-hating agenda. Do you?
Expand the SS witholding tax to include the first $250,000 of income, and either drastically reduce or eliminate benefit payout to anyone earning over that amount. Pretty simple, huh?
Sounds like another tax increase. When you use the word "expand" in reference to any social program, that's just another term for tax increase.
Simple?, maybe. Do-able?.............not sure about that one yet.
Clark, Social Security was once a great idea. But that was way back in the 30's - when it was cheap. Now its sucking the life out of the budget.
Rather than flush it down a never-ending toilet, why can't I invest my own SS money into investments? I don't want to fund a program with so many holes in it.
Democrat or Republican fault? I don't care. I just want to be able to invest my money the way I want.
Please, refute a single thing that you find on their website, beginning with the link that I provided. Please, don't walk away from this challenge, as you seem to have a terrible habit of doing.
"Both are heavily funded by Soros directly"
Prove it. Sorry, but you and your buddy Matt Drudge saying so, just don't convince me, for some odd reason. I want to see documented evidence to support your claim that Soros funds moveon or mediamatters, and I want to see evidence to support your claim that he HEAVILY funds these sites. And, again, I'm not talking about your newsmax, drudge, or o'reilly bullshit. I want REAL documentation.
"Try Wikipedia, CNN, CBS, or somebody like that. No Media Matters, no Daily Ko"
Get real, fool. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that ANYONE can contribute to. Hardly what one would call a reliable source of information. On the contrary, I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that either mediamatters, CNN, CBS, or Dailykos is unreliable. I'll not hold my breath, mind you. (Gosh, I do hope you bring up Dan Rather again! It's been a while since I bitch slapped any wingnuts over that one!)
And why, oh why is it that you cannot accept any links that I provide, and yet YOU cannot provide a single link of your own? Hmmmmm? Why do you suppose that is? I asked you to do some research on your rightwing funders. Where is your homework? Have you dug into the background of the "good" rev. Moon, to see what is funding YOUR favorite sites and "news" outlets? How about Mr. Murdoch? What have you got on him? Have you learned how many rightwing organizations he's currently funding? Or, are you afraid to confront that, for some reason?
"You see, THAT is how you use a source, Clark."
Wikipedia is a fun place to hang out once in a while, but it's the last place I'd ever go for factual documentation on anything relevant. Sorry. Maybe Newsmax has something on the subject?
However, since you went to the trouble of actually providing a link, I'll point out a portion of it for you, from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
"In a letter to the court dated September 26, 2006, Stewart affirmed that her actions were consistent with how she had always represented her clients, but that she failed to recognize the difference in a post-2001 America and, in hindsight, should have been more careful to avoid misinterpretation. "I inadvertently allowed those with other agendas to corrupt the most precious and inviolate basis of our profession – the attorney-client relationship."
Stewart's most outspoken support came from the National Lawyers Guild of which she was a member. Some of Stewart's supporters included the Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; both organizations filed amicus briefs in support of Stewart. They expressed concerns that the prosecution for zealous defense tactics could cause attorneys to become fearful of defending alleged terrorists and deprive individuals of their constitutional right to due process.[9]"
In a nutshell, she's a political prisoner. She's done nothing wrong by traditional legal standards. She became a victim of the lawless version of BushCheneyCorp "justice."
"Clark, this guy only does things to further his agenda. "
Gee, that's SO much different than Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon, isn't it? Can you NOT see what a hypocrite you look like over this? You're embarrassing yourself again.
"He does nothing out of sheer altruism."
Proof, please.
"I think anyone who has an agenda like Soros' should be monitored."
Yeah, anyone who stands up for and help to support democratic ideals, education, and equal civil rights is an obvious threat to the fascist neocon agenda, for sure.
"I don't see any "Right Wing" operative with an insidious America-hating agenda. Do you?"
Uh....I think I may have named TWO, but you haven't bothered to do your homework on them yet, have you? Start with Rev. Moon. You obviously have a LOT of work ahead of you. Enjoy yourself.
"Sounds like another tax increase. When you use the word "expand" in reference to any social program, that's just another term for tax increase.
Simple?, maybe. Do-able?.............not sure about that one yet."
Yes, it's a tax increase for those who can easily afford it, in order to save a program that is crucial to those who cannot afford to live without it. Sounds like "America" to me. No wonder you oppose it. You have a real problem with anything that helps the lower 95%, don't you? Good little neocon.
"Clark, Social Security was once a great idea. But that was way back in the 30's - when it was cheap."
Don't pretend you know anything about this program. You obviously don't. It isn't SS that's "sucking the life out of the budget," it's the neocon's inability to refrain from reckless borrow and spend corporate welfare programs. Wait...that money goes to millionaires and billionaires, so that's ok, right? Forgot. My bad.
"Rather than flush it down a never-ending toilet, why can't I invest my own SS money into investments? I don't want to fund a program with so many holes in it. "
Showing your utter ignorance of the program once again. You really consider US treasury bonds to be "toilet refuse?" Interesting. That's exactly what your boyfriend in the white house said, while he was trying to tout his plan to destroy SS a couple years back. That went over really well for him, too.
As for investing your money, NOBODY HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING to prevent you from doing so. SS is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN an investment vehicle for retirement. It IS, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, a social safety net, that has lifted millions upon millions of people out of poverty and provided an opportunity for millions of Americans to educate themselves and provide a better future for their families. You should really pick up some books once in a while. Trust me, Murdoch, Moon, and Limbaugh don't have all the answers for you.
"Democrat or Republican fault? I don't care. I just want to be able to invest my money the way I want."
No, not "democrat or republican fault." Republican fault. Since 1981, republicans have been obsessed with destroying our national treasury with their reckless, out of control, irresponsible borrow and spend corporate welfare programs to enrich millionaires and billionaires. Over the course of the 18 disastrous years since they took over in 1981, they have increased the then-$1 trillion national debt to a staggering $9 trillion, with nearly $3 trillion of that coming from your boyfriend in the past 6 years alone.
Bush has exploded the size of the federal government by a whopping 25% since stealing office on 12/12/2000. Good thing he's a "conservative," or you'd be all whipped up in a froth over it.
And, once again, SS is NOT an investment vehicle for retirement, and NOBODY is preventing you from investing your money any way in which you please. Stop pretending you know something about something that you obviously know virtually nothing about.
Please, refute a single thing that you find on their website, beginning with the link that I provided. Please, don't walk away from this challenge, as you seem to have a terrible habit of doing.
Are you trying to tell me and everyone else here that George Soros has nothing to do with Media Matters?
Are you trying to tell me and everyone else here that you've proven that he does, or is this just a weak attempt on your part to back out of your homework?
Guess what? Not EVERYTHING that Bill O'Reilly says is factual. Go figure, huh? Same for Matty Drudge, Newsmax, the Moonie Times, and the rest of your rightwing propaganda publications. Like it or not, you're being lied to sometimes.
You don't believe me? Then go find me the proof that Soros funds Mediamatters. I've provided you documentation right from mediamatters that staunchly denies the allegation. Surely, you can rely upon Bill O'reilly to provide the required documentation to back up what he says, right? Why don't you drop him a line or give him a call and have him defend himself against this "scurrilous charge" by media matters that he's not being truthful about making this allegation?
The Fed has destroyed our currency, disconnecting it from the actual tangible substance that is money (gold and silver), and handing us worthless pieces of paper in return. This way they could fund the hyper-expansion of government and the military-industrial complex, via the insidious hidden tax called inflation, and the revenue aquired from the income tax services the interest payments on the money the Fed creates out of thin air and "loans" to the government and other banks. The income tax revenue that doesn't go to interest payments for the Fed then goes to the many socialist programs needed to pacify the masses so they are less inclined to revolt because of the damage caused by the inflation tax (which of course hits the poor and middle-class the hardest). None of the revenue from the illegal income tax goes to necessities such as national defense or education.
Pretty neat how they pull all that off without hardly anyone ever even noticing, huh?
It's as if the same people who run that operation also control the media or something.
naahhh. Couldn't be.
Why would I do that?
I get my news from Left, Middle, and Right.............but not from obvious propagandists. I have been to the site in the past, and the propaganda is palpable from the very start.
Ok, so let's see your "proof" on Soros, then. Surely, your "reputable sites" have plenty of documented proof to support your claim.
"I think you want me to go and spend my night trying to refute something on a site that would never allow damning information to be printed."
No, I didn't say that. I want you to provide documented PROOF that Soros funds media matters and moveon. YOU'RE the one who made the bold statement, and found it a worthy reason to condemn the man. Were you just regurgitating o'Liely's bullshit, or do you have something? Let's see it. Otherwise, shut the hell up when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Nobody needs any more purveyors of lies and misinformation in this day and age. Your boys have got that market pretty well locked up.
"I get my news from Left, Middle, and Right.............but not from obvious propagandists."
That's bullshit, too. You couldn't name a single "left wing establishment" source that you claimed to "listen to." You get your "news" from the same places most delusional wingnuts get theirs...from the rightwing echo chamber. Your bullshit about Soros is straight from the king of TV bullshit, Bill O'reilly. He's been making this false claim for months, but has never once offered a single shred of evidence to back it up.
Meanwhile, you and he remain freakishly silent about the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon, who, among many others, have both provided massive amounts of funding for rightwing propaganda.
You're up to you old tricks again, of trying to peddle bullshit. I'm still calling you out on it, too. Some things never change, I guess. Why don't you just try to be honest for a change? You know, this chatter is a LOT easier when you're not trying to blow smoke up people's asses, especially when you stumble across people who actually KNOW the facts, and are willing to call you on your nonsense. Stop being such an ideologue. Stop pretending that the left is evil and the right is "heaven sent." That's stupid.
You're being manipulated and used. Can't you see that? The first clue is that the "news" that your wonderful "reputable sources" offer is later proven to be 100% false. If you've spent some time on mediamatters.org, then you KNOW what I'm talking about. Your pundits are CONSTANTLY issuing misinformation and lies, and, thankfully, David Brock and his crew are there to catch them. You think it's partisan and unreliable? Then stand up and prove it. Find one thing on that website that you can PROVE is false. You'll notice, undoubtedly, that they've cataloged many dozens of things that YOUR favorite sources have published that have been proven false.
These same folks that say these "special" things, have done virtually the opposite of everything the words imply. But their supporters are unfazed, as long as these guys keep doing the best "talking". It doesn't matter in the slightest which people actually do what they say, you just assume all people are equally serious and honest when they speak.
Alternatively, if a candidate tries to speak frankly about complex matters that involve the well being, or rights, or freedom, of real live people, they are labeled "Communists, or Marxists, or some other nonsensical term. Not because of any rational argument against what they said, which would provide some justification for these labels, but simply because they DID NOT say the appropriate words which Republican supporters are judging by.
It's all about what people SAY, so naturally, the Republican party has become a haven for liars and distortion artists. It was bound to happen. It always happens when people stop thinking things through, and start using buzz words and cutesy phrases to evaluate what people are really up to.
This recently foiled "terrorist plot" is a great example. That is what it is called, and many scary words are used as well, but in the REAL universe, this was more or less a case of entrapment by a con man awaiting sentencing, paid by authorities to try to get some terrorist plots "uncovered". The plans were in their infancy, totally unrealistic, and had no financial backing at all. This was not a near miss, this was not anything more than some hot heads speculating, rather ignorantly about starting some fuel tanks on fire. And it's not at all clear that they were not being egged on by a convicted felon trying to get a break on a jail term.
Does anyone care if that is true ? Will you folks quit with the mindless support of whoever says the most scary things ? Of course not.
Talk is cheap, and many have bought a whole lot of it.
MoveOn.Org financing
"Soros pledged his money to two independent political groups -- MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. "My contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to re-elect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process," he said in a Washington Post opinion piece earlier this month."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.bush.soros.reut/
I watch Keith Olbermann, and I howl with laughter at his antics. He should have stuck to sports..........
Jack Cafferty on CNN is solidly left and he's fun to watch too.
And of course, I get the Sunday New York Times. Reading the Editorials is like taking a trip to the Communist era Soviet Union, and I can enjoy the Nutty Left from my home office. Pure cheddar.
"My contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to re-elect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process,"
Gee, that's sounds pretty radical.
For some reason, Clark challenged me to find a link between MoveOn.Org and Soros. This is old news, so it was easy.
Maybe you haven't read up on him, John, but this guy is very radical. Would you really like to see just a few links describing how radical? There's more, but I don't want to overwhelm you. This guy is pure scum :
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=558
Even Liberal rag, The Nation details some of his more radical drug 'ideas' :
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990920/baker
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=112
Read down about 10 paragraphs for a disturbing history of Soros :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_road_to_serfdom.html
John, if you don't think this guy is a radical after reading these, then your definition is way off base.
Media Matters for America financing
The Center for American Progress funds Media Matters :
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Matters_for_America
And of course, the Center for American Progress is funded by George Soros directly :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/
AR2006052101207.html
Plus, we've already established above that Soros directly funds MoveOn.Org, which in turn funds Media Matters :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
Soros has built himself a funny little web, but most journalists know how to track his foundations and special interests. Sometimes he gives directly. Sometimes he pushes his money through special interest groups. But he always leaves a trail.
You, on the other-hand, if you had billions of dollars, would no doubt refrain from trying to influence society according to your views . . . Right?
Dude, you're here trying to do that now. I have no interest in Mr. Soros' opinions, nor any interest in tracking how he spends his money. Now look who is playing "conspiracy theory" tunes. I guess only "left wingers" can conspire, aye?
I would not do what Soros is doing.
There's no conspiracy here.
This guy is well documented by reputable sources.........CNN, realclearpolitics, CBS' 60 minutes, NPR. He's been interviewed a lot, and yet he somehow thinks no one will ask him what he's doing with his money.
When you loudly proclaim that you'll spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat an incumbent President (2004 election, remember?), you tend to draw a lot of attention to yourself.
Actually, I asked you to provide links to prove his funding to mediamatters.org, which you chose to discount because of the supposed links to Soros (as if that would make everything that they say invalid, somehow) and later, moveon. org. You were the one that brought up moveon.org, not I. Soros has given no direct funding whatsoever to MMA. If he wished to directly support MMA, he would write them a check through OSI. He obviously isn't afraid of having his name attached to democratic ideals and movements.
You provided one of the two. Congrats on that one. Since moveon.org is not a source of information, per say, but is a marketing arm, I don't have a lot to do with that particular organization, nor do I pay particular attention to any of their funding apparatus, although I do enjoy watching their scathing, highly effective ads. As a progressive, I'm quite pleased that they're there to spread some truth the the masses.
"I watch Keith Olbermann, and I howl with laughter at his antics.
I doubt it. He's an easy name to mention, because he's high profile, but that doesn't mean that you watch him on a regular basis. I strongly doubt you do, and you obviously have no clue about Cafferty if you believe him to be a "leftist."
How do you feel about the Fox "news" network and virtually it's entire cast of so-called "journalists" being nothing but extremist right wingers? I bet you're just fine with that, aren't you? And, I'll bet you're just fine with their habit of misinforming the public as well. Any guesses as to who funded this GOP propaganda giant? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't George Soros.
"Maybe you haven't read up on him, John, but this guy is very radical. Would you really like to see just a few links describing how radical? There's more, but I don't want to overwhelm you. This guy is pure scum :"
You condemn Soros for putting his money into things that he believes in. The man was found guilty of some sort of financial shenannigans in France some time ago, so he's not my favorite person in the world. HOWEVER, he did pay his due for what he did, unlike George W. Bush, Neil Bush, and Marvin Bush, all three of whom have also been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Wait...those are republicans...different standard...sorry. My mistake.
Have you done YOUR homework on Murdoch and Moon? Do you have any idea who these people are, and what they've done to the media in this country? Soros has done NOTHING compared to what these junk merchants have done, yet you have no problem whatsoever with them, do you? I wonder why that is? Could it be, oh, I don't know...HYPOCRISY? Yeah, I thought so.
Why is it horrible and unacceptable for a progressive to fund progressive ideals, but fine for radical extremists on the right to fund fascist ideals? Hypocrisy. You seem to think that progressives are the only persons with wealth, or that they are the only ones using that wealth to further their political agenda. Think again. Like I said, do your homework on Murdoch and Moon.
"Soros has built himself a funny little web, but most journalists know how to track his foundations and special interests. Sometimes he gives directly. Sometimes he pushes his money through special interest groups. But he always leaves a trail."
Gee, it's a good thing that there are no right wing philanthropists doing this sort of thing, huh? Face it, your problem with Soros isn't that he's wealthy, socialist, or a philanthropist, but that he funds DEMOCRATIC ideals, rather than FASCIST ideals. You have no problem at all with Rupert Murdoch funding numerous right wing media outlets, nor do you have any problem with Rev. Moon doing the same, in spite of his anti-American, anti-Christian beliefs and his criminal background. No, these folks are A-Ok in your book, because they're funding RIGHT WING outlets, not LEFT WING.
It doesn't matter to you that they both shovel bullshit into the "liberal media" or that they heavily influence voting in this country. No, what matters most of all to YOU is that they're on "YOUR side." If they were leftists, you'd be railing against them as well. That's because you're a hypocrite, pure and simple. You like to pretend that you're "independent," or "libertarian," but frankly, when it comes down to it, what you are is strongly anti-democratic. ANYTHING to the left of Hitler is evil, in your mind, so you automatically cast all things democratic as "scum" and all things fascist as "divine and unassailable."
"I would not do what Soros is doing."
But Murdoch and Moon would, and that's ok.
"When you loudly proclaim that you'll spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat an incumbent President (2004 election, remember?), you tend to draw a lot of attention to yourself."
And? Is there a law against wishing to see a miserably failed, terribly dangerous, illegitimate US president defeated, and is there also a law against providing funding to raise awareness that would help enlighten people to vote against him?
See Clark you spout so much buyllshit even you can't keep it straight.
You claim SS has "lifted millions out of poverty"?? You are one funny dude Clark. Yeah those $275/mo checks have got the seniours living high on the hog. I hear a lot of them are now looking to relocate to Beverly Hills and Monte Carlo so they can find a lifestyle better suited to their new found wealth.
You are so disingenous when you talk about deficit spending from the Reagan administration. What you refuse to mention is that during his administration there was a dem controlled house and senate. The congress (under the control of the libs) refused to submit a budget that stayed within the constraints of THEIR fiscal responsibilty and submitted budget after budget after budget far exceeding revenue. The president (naturally denied the line item veto power which would put an end to ALL the set aside and bullshit pork programs BOTH parties slip into bills) was forced with two options, sign the budget or shut down the government, (which incidentally would have put all the layabouts and and trough feeders who you care so deeply about) out in the street, as weel as recipients who are truly in need of assistance.
Bret brings up an outstanding point by mentioning how rare is the liberal who will call a tax a increase a tax increase. It's usually called quaint nice sounding euphemisms like "new revenue streams" or "expanding the funding". Strap a pair on and act like you are used to having em, call it what it is. You want to stick your hand in my pocket and give it to someone else. I know this sounds old fashioned to a communist like you Clarke, but seeing as how, you know, it's MY money and I EARNED it, shouldn't I have some say so about what gets done with it?
The problem with most of the Liberal politicains is that with a few exceptions (Robert Byrd former grand poohbah of the W. Va KKK being one) they got their money the old fashion way. They inherited it. Teddy K, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, none of these scumbags earned their money, so to them money is not something that is the result of work. It's the result of the sperm bank lottery.. Of course Teddy's dad Joe was wise enough to set up the Kennedy trusts in such way that the family pays next to no taxes on that money. As a matter of fact when Rose died, Teddy tried have the probabte done in Fla, so he could duck paying "his fair share" of estate taxes. Typical Kennedy DAISNAID (Do as I say not as I do) he has also been instrumental in blocking the Cape Wind which is a privately funded alternative energy co. trying to build a windmill farm in Nantucket Sound, that would produce enough electricity (CLEAN ELECTRICITY) for all of SE Massachusetts. Teedy and Kerry have been strongly opposed to this, on the grounds that some seagulls might fly into the windmills and get killed and some fish might bang their little scaley heads on the footings in the dark. Of course the fact that it would be visible out the window of the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport (might adversely affect property value for the cash strapped Kennedys don't you know) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Strangely though Kennedy seems to think the fish and birds in Buzzards Bay MAss are more intelligent or have better eyesight because he thinks that is just a nifty spot a windfarm. The other Democrat leg in their platform NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)
Finally Clarke can stop crying in your milk and cookies about the fact that two ridiculously inept Democrats failed to beat Bush in two elections. Bush was so beatable in the last election that the DNC had to go out of their way to find someone who would lose to him. There were very few people in Massachusetts who believed Kerry would win that election. He couldn't even get elected Governor of this communist state, we knew he couldn't be forced down the throats of mainstream America (yes Clark THAT America, the one you despise so much and wish could be more like the utopia of say Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela. Now there are a couple fine examples of your policy writ large. Thigs seem to be working out really well there don't they? ) Clark time for you to learn a few new tricks these same old tired rants are getting tedious, even the few loons who believe like you do have fled you. Hey you never know Clark Fidel is very sick, maybe some openings in the Cuban politburo opening up. I think you would be an OUTSTANDING party member. If you need any recommendations to help with your defection, hit me up...
And now he and the Fed are trying to hide the true extent of this stealth tax increase, by refusing to make M3 statistics available to Congress and the public. But we in the middle-class know how bad it really is; we can feel the pinch when we fill up our cars, try to finance a mortgage, or send our kids to college.
I merely made an assertion about Soros that I knew to be reasonable and credible. You chose to challenge me. Then I showed you the proof. If you want to have an argument or a discussion about the ramifications of what Soros does, then that's another matter. I have no problem continuing on with this thread as it takes on a whole new character.
But at least acknowledge that almost everybody understands Soros' game. He's not fooling anyone by attempting to cover his tracks. When he contributes directly to a Left Wing cause it gets there immediately. When he pushes his money through Left Wing special interest groups that he's allied with, it may take a little longer to get into the pipeline, but it always gets there.
This issue was a loser for you. Why did you pursue stuff that's completely obvious and heavily documented NOT in your favor? Remember when I said you used to be more sharp and concise? Here's a good example.
The top 1% of US taxpayers only made 19% of US income, but pay 36% of the total tax bill. How is that fair?
Steve, the Bush tax cuts are devastating? By what accounting? A huge amount of the folks on the lower end of the tax collection spectrum paid NOTHING.
The Bush tax cuts have stimulated the economy to an unprecedented level, Steve. At no time in the history of this country has Federal revenue been higher.
http://www.aicpa.org/PUBS/jofa/jun2002/tax_ex2.htm
Here's the difference, as I see it, between what Soros and his minions are doing, and what all other true Conservative billionaire politicos are doing :
Conservative billionaires (multi-millionaires in the past) have contributed to the same core values and causes for the last 200+ years. We're strong because of what these guys have done over the long term.
Soros and like-minded billionaires are a recent phenomenon……….but a disastrous one. Their stated goals are to undermine everything they don't like – which is everything that has worked!
The complete hypocrisy in this equation is that Soros and his ilk have used America's freedom, market economy, cheap capital, taxation policy, and entrepreneurial atmosphere to amass their fortunes. Now they look to undo most of what made them what they are.
When the founders created this government they NEVER intended for anyone to make being a politician a career. They in fact were disgusted by the very thought of it. It is also why the pay was kept very very modest. Most of them didn't even take their "salary". Now we have congressmen and senators who have never in their entire life worked in the real world. Is it any wonder that they have no concept of the life everyday Americans lead? Many of them are truly bottom feeders, who's only driving belief is whatever it takes to stay in office.
Your mortgage rates are still at or near all time lows Steve,,,,,, I think you are flashing back to the late 70's when smilin Jimmy Carter (who sinned in his heart, but has never ever met a communist dictator he didn't just wanna have man love with) was president. Remember him Steve? Think back the prime rate was right around 20% that means you pay less interest on your visa now than you would have on a mortgage while Jimmy was president. We had miles long gas lines at the gas stations . Many stations ran out of gas for days at a time...........Ahhhh yes the good old days, I believe he had a democrat house and senate to help him drive the country to the very brink of economic ruin. If only we could go back to that....... Yet that hillbilly nitwit peanut farmer has the audacity to pass judgement on ANY other president??? His administration is very widely considerd the very worst of the 20th century and possibly the worst ever. Yet he feel justified in speaking out internationally, completely counter to US policy. Someone should lock that nitwit up and stick a sock in his mouth.
I think it will take just one well-placed atomic bomb (probably in Europe) to make George W. Bush look like a sage. It WILL happen - its just a matter of when. Only then will most Libs say "damn, maybe W was right!"
But don't hold your breath for that...........
I was referring to the tax hike which not only immediately offsets whatever pitiful tax relief we got from the income tax cuts, but also made Bush and the 108th/109th GOP-controlled Congress the biggest tax increasers in modern history.
Keep in mind, debt is a tax. When the government borrows money, its the taxpayer who ultimately answers for that debt. one way or another.
But the real doozie is the tax no one ever talks about (at least no politicians or media pundits, anyway); the inflation tax.
Inflation destroys the purchasing power of our savings, and those with fixed incomes or low - medium-wage jobs suffer the most. The value of our hard-earned dollars is siphoned off and transferred to Wall St. and Washington DC.
Inflation is taxation, just done in stealth; and George W. Bush has seen to it that the expansion of government has demanded massive inflation.
The Federal Reserve stopped making M3 statistics available to the public and Congress recently, which means we no longer access to information on exactly how much new money the Fed is printing to satisfy the demands of imperial/Big Brother government ushered in by the Neocons.
Maybe it escapes their comprehension that perhaps the Neocon foreign policy is actually increasing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks?
If there is no such attack, they will udoubtedly praise Bush for his success in "protecting us from 'the terrorists'."
If there is an attack, they will say "see? Bush is doing the right thing! If only those damn Liberals would just let him protect us better."
It's damned if they do, and damned if they don't, all the way.
If the masters SAY they are for the common man, it is to be taken on faith. There's no need to check with reality, that can only confuse the message. If they SAY they are acting to protect us from "terrorists", there's no need to watch how their actions might incite far more terrorist behaviour, it just can't be so. If they SAY they are "balancing the budget", there is no need to check the real numbers, everybody knows that numbers are untrustworthy, the masters SAY so.
Bret's got a great one spinning in endless circles about Mr. Soros; He's a dark and devious menace . . . He openly admits his positions . . . He's subverting our democracy . . . He declares his desire for an unmanipulated populace . . . He hides behind a "funny little web" . . . It is easy to track his contributions . . . He's against "everything that has worked!" . . . He is a freakin multi-billionaire with a philanthropic bent . . . "He's been interviewed a lot, and yet he somehow thinks no one will ask him what he's doing with his money." . . .
No wonder nothing fazes them, they can't stop spinning long enough to allow anything to sink in past the surface of "special" words.
Teddy Kennedy is the root of the illegal immigration problem [disregard the fact that George Bush doesn't even attempt to conceal his plans for a "North American Union" merger with the U.S., Canada, and Mexico by 2010; probably explains his lack of enthusiasm for securing the border].... George Soros is ruining the media [disregard the fact that the entire "mainstream media" is owned by the same people who profit from the wars their networks help to rally support for -- and then there's Rupert Murdoch... the Liberals "embolden the enemy" [disregard the fact that the CIA admitted that the Iraq war has increased recruitment for terrorist groups and made Osama bin Laden the most popular man in the Middle East]...
Keep chewing away at those scapegoats; the real "enemies of freedom" will gladly keep feeding them to you.
I was referring to the tax hike which not only immediately offsets whatever pitiful tax relief we got from the income tax cuts, but also made Bush and the 108th/109th GOP-controlled Congress the biggest tax increasers in modern history.
What tax hike are you referring to?
Borrowed money? Trade deficit? Current Accounts Imbalance? What?
But the real doozie is the tax no one ever talks about (at least no politicians or media pundits, anyway); the inflation tax.
The inflation rate for April 2007 was .4%, Stephen. How is that bad?
Source :
http://www.bls.gov/
The Federal Reserve stopped making M3 statistics available to the public and Congress recently, which means we no longer access to information on exactly how much new money the Fed is printing to satisfy the demands of imperial/Big Brother government ushered in by the Neocons.
Oh brother.
Not another one.
Sounds kinda Ron Paul-ish to me.
M3 relevance has definitely diminished in recent years, Stephen, as debt other than bank forms of credit has risen. However, I will go along with you on this one……….M3 should still be published. It's not the end of the world, though........and it has ZERO to do with Neocons......lol.
Maybe it escapes their comprehension that perhaps the Neocon foreign policy is actually increasing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks?
If there is no such attack, they will udoubtedly praise Bush for his success in "protecting us from 'the terrorists'."
If there is an attack, they will say "see? Bush is doing the right thing! If only those damn Liberals would just let him protect us better."
First of all, I support all that the President is doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. Our military action keeps the killing in their backyard, not in ours. I've never hoped for any terrorist attack..........I just think one is inevitable with the Iranian leader spewing the venom he does. Not to mention Iran is deeply involved in producing nuclear material.
Stephen, don't you think this Neocon "boogeyman behind every tree" game has gone on long enough? Most of the old Neocons have faded from view.
If all that I've said about George Soros hasn't gotten through to you because of the sheer amount, I'll make it easy for you :
He's evil. Read his Biography.
Convicted money launderer. Helped the Nazis appropriate land from Jews in WWII. Almost single-handedly bankrupted Malaysia through currency manipulations in the late 90's. Ties to drugs worldwide. Funds insurgents, attempts to overthrow governments, etc., etc., etc.
This guy is a never-ending cesspool.
I care nothing of Mr. Soros or your glowing compliments of him. I am here to demonstrate the horrid partisan rot in this "Random" neosheep bleating some call an article. You, on the other hand are my "illustration".
Spin on ! Oh Great Spreader of Maliciousness. Surely there is something someone gives a shit about, which you can make nauseating.
"What tax hike are you referring to?"
I am referring to the tax hike levied through the massive spending, borrowing, and unbacked currency printing that has gone off the charts under the Bush administration.
As for the trade deficit, it's not really the deficit per se that hurts us. As Author G. Edward Griffin puts it, ""We have been told that our nation's trade deficit is a terrible thing, and that it would be better to 'weaken the dollar' to bring it to an end. Weakening the dollar is a euphemism for increasing inflation. In truth, America is not hurt by a trade deficit at all. In fact, we are the benefactors while our trading partners are the victims. we get the cars and TV sets while they get the funny money. We get the hardware. They get the paperware... As long as the dollar remains in high esteem as a trade currency, America can continue to spend more than it earns. But when the day arrives -- as it certainly must -- when the dollar tumbles and foreigners no longer want it, the free ride will be over. When that happens, hundreds of billions of dollars that are now resting in foreign countries will quickly come back to our shores as people all over the world attempt to convert them into yet more real estate, factories, and tangible products, and to do so as quickly as possible before they become even more worthless. As this flood of dollars bids up prices, we will finally experience the inflation that should have been caused in years past but was postponed because foreigners were kind enough to take the dollars out of our economy in exchange for their products.
The chickens will come home to roost. But when they do, it will not be because of the trade deficit. It will be because we were able to finance the trade deficit with fiat money created by the Federal Reserve. If it were not for that, the trade deficit could not have happened."
In other words, it's the Fed's monopoly of credit creation and policy of inflating the money supply to satisfy their globalist agenda that is killing us, not the trade deficit itself.
You pointed out that the inflation rate for April 2007 was .4%, but thats merely a snapshot, nowhere close to revealing the total picture.
Since the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the real value of our currency has been obliterated, with today's dollar worth only 1.5 cents compared to the dollar then.
The purchasing power of the dollar has decreased a whopping 66% in the last decade alone, and the onslaught will continue unabated until either until the inevitable economic collapse (definitely by 2010, probably sooner), or until the American people finally wake up and DEMAND our representatives in Congress take action and ABOLISH the Federal Reserve System, and its thuggish sibling, the IRS, with it.
Bret; if you really want to understand the full scope and true nature of the beast that has been insidiously working to undermine our prosperity, liberty, and sovereignty since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, I highly recommend the following link -- it really is profoundly enlightening and informative: Parable of Perfect Economy -- What We All Must Understand to Distinguish True Economy from Purported Economy.
The unevitable result if we do not take action NOW: Probability of Worldwide Economic Collapse Under Insoluble Debt.
I believe it's highly likely that whoever is president when we reach the point of collapse will use the threat of worldwide economic catastrophe as a selling point to get the nation to sit still for the advent of the "North American Union," using promises of fiscal and political stability in their propaganda (as we are already seeing in the statements on the websites of the White House and the Council on Foreign Relations regarding the "Shared Security and Prosperity Agreement of North America").
One-world government is the ultimate agenda for these people; a global socialist state -- as already admitted in the past by David Rockefeller and other prominent members of the CFR. George W. Bush is working in spite of the American people and the Congress and Courts to build this "New World Order," and the Federal Reserve System, World Bank/IMF, and UN are the supreme tools of tyranny and usury which are being applied to make it happen.
Read, learn, and TAKE ACTION -- before its too late.
I remember our arguments and discussions from last year, and came to believe that as I watched the nightly news on many different channels (to avoid being propagandized by just one philosophy), that you and I are looking at the same story from a different perspective.
You will always look at every issue and every story through a prism of "The neocons are fucking me".......lol.
I look at it through a prism of "all government is fucking me, Democrat or Republican".........and how can I minimize the effects of both?
Partisanship, as you and Clark say, does not denote a failure to speak the truth. It just allows in too much propaganda to be unbiased, that's all.
I'm not sure how old you are, but your posting made it sound like you wanted to teach me Economics. I had a lot of the same revelations you're now having, when I graduated with my degree in Finance.
Your links were very good. I especially like the re-telling of Ben Franklin's travels pre-1776 in England. Great stories.
However, we're talking about today, and the economics of today are :
- Inflation : minimal - about 5%
- Unemployment - low
- Stock market - high
- Cost of money - cheap
- Taxes - reasonable, but could be lower
- North American Union - it will never happen. Why? The economic imbalance between the US and Mexico is too great.
- The UN - I'm not a fan, and I opine that most Americans aren't either.
- The Federal Reserve - I know its not a legal entity, ratified by Congress..........but somehow it seems to work. There is not a loud outcry to have it abolished........so it remains.
- The IRS - yep, kill it. I think most of us are for that.....lol.
I believe your thinking is heavily influenced by the media which has "propagandized" you, despite your attempt to avoid it by watching many different networks.
btw, I wasn't necessarily trying to "teach you economics," it just seemed from your earlier response to my post that you were having trouble grasping the idea that government's foreign debt is a tax on future generations, and that inflation is a tax that effects us all now, though it is hidden and easily scapegoated off by the media mainstream corporate media who dutifully provide cover for the thieves who own them.
In any case, here's how I see the things you just mentioned:
- Inflation: dismal. Dollar has lost 2/3 of its value over the last 10 years, and continues to drop at an ever increasing rate.
- Unemployment: Probably the most manipulated statistic that comes from the federal government. i) The way they measure it is by counting the number of people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. Of course not everyone who is unemployed is eligible for benefits, and even those who are can only collect for 26 weeks maximum. Once the 26 weeks are used up, benefits run out and the person no longer counts toward the unemployment statistics! They are no longer officially "unemployed;" they are a ghost of the unemployed, no longer counting towards the official numbers. With that in mind, it's important to recognize that George W. Bush eliminated all programs for possible benefit extensions back in 2002, so that people couldn't collect for longer and thus potentially damage his low unemployment rate statistics (heck of a guy, that GW). Also, with so many jobs going overseas and being outsourced to the flood of cheap illegal immigrant labor from within, many of those "ghosts of the unemployed" are finding ever harder to return to the workforce, especially finding gainful employment. That's another thing, the statistics don't count the underemployed. To top it all off, the ever-spiraling inflation persistently chips away at the value of the already-insufficient wages in todays working-class job market.
- Stock market: Of course its "high," thats where a great deal of the newly-printed, unbacked inflation dollars are going; to artificially prop up Wall St. Keep in mind, the stock market was all the rage in the years imediately preceding the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, too. The Stock Market is really a poor and inefficient barometer for measuring the health of an economy, though the media does a good job of convincing most people otherwise. Whats good for Wall St. isn't always good for Main St., particularly in a fascist-state economy where government and corporations form a partnership; which is exactly what we have in America since 1913. And you also have to keep in mind that our "good economy" right now is predicated on borrowing, way more than any true increase in production. The never-ending multiplication of debt managed by the Federal Reserve System can create a false "boom" whenever it pleases -- however it is always followed by a subsequent bust. Its just a matter of time....
Cost of money - What do you mean? Are you referring to interest rates? If you studied up on this stuff, you'd see that the Fed lowers interest rates whenever it wants to stimulate an economic boom. Study a little further and you'd realize that these booms are ALWAYS followed by a bust, at which point the member banks of the Federal Reserve cartel move in and swallow up all the assets that were forfeited on account of the mess which they themselves manufactured. Its an orchestrated brand of complex thievery, that most people have no clue is even occuring.
- Taxes: You say "reasonable." There's one thing I have to say about this: an illegal, unconstitutional provision could NEVER be "reasonable." The income tax is a fraud perpetrated on the American people, imposed on us by force of government coercion; the threat of imprisonment. This is called TYRANNY. Tyranny is unreasonable, in my view.
- North American Union: Not only will it happen, it IS happening. George Bush, Vicente Fox, and Canadiam PM Harper have already agreed in principle, and preparation are being made to build an intra-national superhighway to span the three nations as we speak. This is, of course, all being planned out and implemented without any input or consent from the American people and our representatives in Congress -- but it is happening nonetheless. You can read here a bunch of CFR operatives' "task force" report, where they sit around and toss out ideas on what ways they are impose their will on us and eradicate our national sovereignty.
Maybe the words from the players themselves in this game of building world socialism will convince you of how very real and imminent the prospects are:
One of the founders of the CFR and former Secretary of State to fellow CFR-member Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Dulles, said: "Some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty system as it prevails in the world today must take place... to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power.... The United States must be prepared to make sacrifices afterward in setting up a world politico-economic order which would level off inequalities of economic opportunities with respect to nations."
CFR-member Professor Richard N. Cooper, Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs in the administration of CFR-member Jimmy Carter, said: "I suggest a radical alrenative scheme for the next century: the creation of a coomon currency for all the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of issue to determine that monetary policy... How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body..."
CFR-member Richard Gordon, adviser to CFR-member Jimmy Carter, explains the deceitful strategy to be applied in this endeavor: "In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up... An end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
International banker, co-founder of the Federal Reserve System, and CFR-member member Paul Warburg testified in front of the Senate: "We WILL have world government, whether you like it or not. The only question is will that government be achieved by conquest or consent."
- The UN: I'm not a fan either, and I believe the best course of action for us now is to secede from the UN altogether.
- The Federal Reserve: "...somehow it seems to work"? IT HAS DESTROYED OUR NATION! It has transformed us from a free and prosperous society into debt-ridden hamsters for the wheel of eternal usury. Hardly anyone actually owns their own home anymore, and most people spend their entire lives making interest payments on almost everything they possess. The whole purpose of the 16th Amendment (supposedly authorizing a tax on our labor) was so the government could force us to pay for the interest payments on the money the Fed "loans" our government; money they print from out of thin air! Since the Fed started, we've had over 1000% inflation, and the dollar has lost 98.5% of its value. Every dollar printed for circulation under the central banking scheme is created for the purpose of being loaned to someone. We are constantly multiplying the cycle of debt because we have to take out new "loans" from the pool of principal and interest we've just payed back. This is the way it was designed to work; to enslave the nation under a mountain of insoluble debt. So yeah; in that regard, it does appear to be working.