you have christian values mixed up with family values sometimes they are the same when it comes to bigotry christian family values go comunist and are far away from american family values don't call it homophobe don't call them represt call them what they are .they are bigots and if you are bigotouse of one thing you will be bigotouse to what ever they think is justifiable to be bigotouse of
you have christian values mixed up with family values sometimes they are the same when it comes to bigotry christian family values go comunist and are far away from american family values
Idaho's Craig was in Philadelphia this week and hired a male companion through an online site so he could perform oral on the companion and then have the companion whip him with his belt. Then this example of moral fortitude went back to his wife to pass on whatever he caught during his dalliance. What a lovely man.
i know you are someone i dont want to talk to. you know how i know that, because of what you just said. see how i use evidence to proceed with a theory.
@thesparitan Well. Maybe I am wrong. If I am I apologize. I will admit that I jumped too much. I apologize for that. I don't know you, you're right. So, tell me how do you feel about this adversarial hate mongering in this nation? I myself resent being categorized that I live in a blue state or a red state. We're being divided again. Another type of Civil War? Possibly?
i like it when people are adversarial, i think its a good thing. when someone says my beliefs are stupid and i am stupid for believing them, i dont have a big problem with that. sometimes i fuck with people for fun and sometimes i am serious. if someone wants a honest conversation i will always give it.
what i dont like is irrational hate, and propaganda. i have never been a fan of that, also i dont like hero worship and leader worship. i dont like obama but i voted for him.
@thesparitan Cool answer. I am trying not to fuck with people. I am not trying to sound holy. I am getting worried about this nation. You do not at all seem violent. However, I think the nation is starting to go over the top.I too,felt betrayed by Obama. he threw money at the bankrollers just like GW. He is escalating the war in the M.E. and vets have told me that the war is going badly. The war is pouring over the borders. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, some not even Muslims coming in after O's move.
look dude, i was an activist and i tried to change the world, i couldnt change a small part of a city. you are not going to change anything, this nation is doomed.
no party or leader or movement will change that. look to history, ever empire goes through this and we are the same.
its over, dont worry about. you have 2 choices, you can try to move to another country like me or you can just relax and prepare for the worst.
i am a nihilist now, read some camus and relax sisyphus.
@thesparitan What did I say? I apologize and ask a general question and you resort to rejection? A cryptic answer? What evidence? An apology? Interesting and sad.
dont apologize i dont care. it is your problem not mine. you didnt offend me.
look i really dont want to do this with you. you seem to be to sensitive and a not very stable person. you responded so much you seem to be to depend on the internet for relationships. i may hurt your feelings but it could health you out. no one should care what someone says online, lets hope you take my words with little importance.
the country is going to fall, this cannot be avoided, why fight it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Homophobia....blah,,,blllaaaahaaalalbblahhahh....penis circumference....fascinating discoveries...blah.blah,blah,blllaaahahah,blah...the religious right...homophobic..said something totally overlooked...he spanks people...(laughter) ..blahblahblah...blah.(clapping)Meanwhile the battles rage. Afghans die face down...Islam is uniting...Iran can handle Israel into a Pyhrric Victory. "Straight"? and Homo Amerikans crawl into their clean sheets and fart, breed, have sex, make money, eat, shit etc.
Who gives a fuck? Seriously, if we are all gay? So? What damned difference does it make? If gay guys deep down want women on a certain level, I don't give a shit either. What is bad is that we are headed to a false New World Order. It is nothing new. It is the same old world order with a misrepresentation of fact attached to the thing's lie of newness. We are coming into an age where iron shackles will be on us. Whether seen or not it will be horrid if we do stop these monsters of the G20.
Shame and self-loathing are a powerful tools for control and submission. I believe people often externalize their own self-hatred by demonizing the actions of others. The people who are the most fervently demand society ban or repress something are usually the most conflicted in their individual relationship to that thing — porn, abortion, homosexuality are rife with examples. Then again some people are just d-bags.
Yet, you ban and control anything your libTURD brains consider loathsome to your religion of self. Dude. One can go to any adult bookstore, and even find a corner to whack theirself. Enjoy. No one will stop you. Have your world. Yet, you've bred this backlash, & while you're fighting "Christians", you will taken by Islam. Because frankly, the libturd world is a dry, cold and unspiritual world. It is a world of utter heartlessness amid its social concerns.True anarchy breeds closeness. It must.
There is no doubt this pile of shit "christianity" is a blight. I tried to fit into right wing type churches and could never fit in. I always got into it with either the pastor or one of their henchmen. My politics is not rightist. Yet, I do not beleive in gun control. I grew up around immigrants who lived through Nazi and Commie regimes. These guys said they always grab the guns before they grab the people. I am a Nam Era Marine who hated that as well. Both lib & NeoDork are killing this nation
The minority of Americans who chose to own weapons have an incredible amount of latitude, even with more progressive laws regulating how weapons are sold and carried. The reality is that the philosophy of Religious Right — who share a huge overlap with gun-nuts — are much more aligned with the Fascistic practices of the Nazis or Soviets then any contemporary Liberal.
Contemporay liberals are just in many cases, going to end what Soviets and Nazis did. They ended rights to own guns. The people in Europe have a different perspective than the people of America. Fascism and messianic Communism were both promising a utopia. There is that similar attitude among many liberals. There is still a definite self-righteousness within the utopian liberality.
self-righteousness among liberals? oh please. i'm assuming you are one of the supporters of "God told me to attack Iraq" Bush or "Let's triple the deficit with a useless military expansion after the USSR was already on the brink of collapse" Reagan. I hate it when neocons throw around the word "liberal" like a swear word. Economic slumps in American history are the fault of conservatives. Great Depression=Hoover. Latest recession=Bush. Recession before Bush=Reagan. Please, just shut up
No dumbfuck, I am not. Bush is one of the biggest blights this land has ever seen, let alone gets away with leading. Alot of that, my 2 dimensional libturd loon does not fit into your flipside of the right mentality. You know, what's superbly salient in your opening line is your reference to "God told me ..." Let alone being unable to see your own "enlightened" shortcomings. The messianic guilt trips from the left. LOL>
Messianic? Check your facts, Bush publicly stated that God told him to strike Afghanistan. With the religious nutcases on the right, who the hell are you to be calling anyone messianic? Typical hypocrisy from the CONservatives
I am no conservative dear one. Far from it. It is a gradual anarchy. A libertarianism of one step beyond. I suggest you read the writings of Emma Goldman and people like her. By the way, any real far left person sees the uselessness of your lukewarm world. Messianism comes in many a neat package. Yes, Bush is an obvious & religious type. You can see the pathetic impotency of your liberality in the gutlessness of this wretched "president" Obama. His turd VP, Biden who promoted Iraq deceptively.
@thesparitan I realize that this is not doing anyone any good. You know that the religious right demonizes people and you do the same. You spin the stories as you see it and they spin the story as they see it. Ultimately, you are all the same. I really don't know who's more disgusting the libturds or the religious right. The reason why it does no good in the eand to argue with either of you, is that it does no good. You're both equally self-righteous.
you know something i have never trusted people that mutate a name to make it seem more ridiculous.
i thought that stopped at 7th grade. so i am the same as the religious right, and you dont even know what i believe or even know my name or even had a discussion with me beyond a few words. and you know that i am the same as a right wing movement
Yes, and by the way. Obama continues the same policies. Nothing has changed. You know. I really wish you morons would forget your dicks for one week and think of the carnage and the mind control that is wrecking all of our individualities. I somebody wants to suck off another adult. Fine. Get over it. It's a minor issue. Who gives a shit about penis circumference? But goofed up morons who cannot keep their sexuality in the confines of a relationship need attention like a bedwetting child.
Fuck you.Slick Willy passed the single most damaging enactment since pro-slavery. It is the "Gramm, Bliley, Leach Act.(1999) It gave the banks the right to leach onto combining retail and investment banking, and also insurance. He repealed the acts of FDR stopping the banks from integrating and becoming psychotic. Slick did this, along with cramming anti-environmental, pro-corporate H.R.'s to insure his pardon by GW & waiting indictments when he exited. Now look at us."Too big to fall". WeRToast
I like your argument about hypocrisy. Those preaching should be 'better' by their actions rather than just words. However, to be human is to err & all struggle. Putting them up to burn for a show; for $, endorsement of oneself & revenge is no different than the hypocrisy exposed.
Such simplification of a us/them/Conservative/Liberal etc comparison without the intellectual scrutiny only shows unfettered bias inspired by a desire to self deceivingly correct one's own past. It's preadolescent.
He asserts that government's duty is to offer healthcare and education in another video, which consists of confiscating property (taxes) from one group and distributing it to another. From what I've seen, he's about as authoritarian as they get.
Funny he should speak of the religious right's hypocrisy in light of his own. He is as much an enemy of natural rights as the neocons. Like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Olbermann, he spouts worthless rhetoric.
Both sides are self-righteous and filled with their own indignations. The Hegelian Dialectic plays out well here. Thesis="Patriotism"-blood n' guts bullshit, Holy Crusades, anti-terror terrorists, their "God", etc.-- Antithesis=You need me, I am an enlightened libturd. "If you don't dig the gayboy, you're sick and scared." White man's guilt, revisited. etc. This group resists gov't yet they want weaponless populaces. That's great. NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY. Ooooh! Now I'm really bad.
That's probably your problem. When all else follows accuse others of your dilemna. That's not the point religion boy,with sexual wonder and penis envy over your wretched preachers. Besides if that was true, it wouldn't matter stupid. I am not in your world of lies.
I think your just as fascinated with that as anyone making those accusations. Just telescoping your fears onto me. I guess libturds are pretty much as stupid as contards.
This character intrigues me, which is why I accessed this video. I should note that I am a conservative and a Christian, though I do not belong to the Christian right (I skew toward traditional conservatism/ paleolibertarianism).
His arguments lack substance. They carry the same weight that neoconservative arguments against "liberals" do--they're ad hominems.(continued)
I agree with you. In this nation of lies you are forced to join one camp or another. No critical thinking should ever be utilized. It's either you're for us, or against us. Even among the so-called liberals this is the rule. The right takes your mind through mindless loyalties and uses traditional guilt systems. The left is religious as well. They insult your very being because you will not give into their messianisms of "new eras"i.e. lies ex. Obama mama!Yet, we are still killing and torturing.
Religion always creates monsters. Look at the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - three of the most murderous organizations in the history of humankind.
All religion should be banned as psychologically damaging to human beings. It is worse than smoking and drinking - it poisons entire populations like a rampant and extremely malignant virus.
How to get rid of it - an innoculation of reason and a healthy diet of facts would be very beneficial.
I have seen as much radicalism in absence of religion. I trust you know the examples, so I won't burden you with them.
That you suggest we ban religion points to your own authoritarian leanings. The philosophy of liberty, through such vessels as John Locke and even Immanuel Kant, has found friends in both the religious and atheists, and has been justified by religious arguments.
You can't ignore this, as I can't ignore atheist Ayn Rand's grand philosophy of economic and individual liberty.
That's great, "all religion should be banned" - "Religion always creates monsters". A retard like you is one micrometer away from falling off your barstool into the otherside after a few more sips of your own religious liquor. Even though I see "church" to be a sold out pack of lies in some cases, your "healthy diet of facts" is A. Not really fact, and B. Not very healthy. I asked another Messianic lib-activist where his missions and soup kitchens were.He snuck off.I know, "Da' guv' feed y'all."
Its all so pathetic , to hold onto old Christian values, who were all thought up by the Church to fill there pockets and to enhance there power over the believers. THE CHURCH IS A HAOX.
If someone borrows a lot of money and gets a good haircut and buys a good suit and gets a good job and works hard and gets lucky, he will earn a lot of money and he can pay off his debts.
That's paying off one's debts by borrowing.
That's capitalism.
Capitalism at its best is borrowing money to accomplish what you otherwise couldn't accomplish.
I don't see why people claim to find that incomprehensible.
Going broke is having the inability to earn and the inability to borrow.
We have both.
What we've got to do is borrow now and make investments that allow us to earn as much as we are capable of earning.
Then, once we are earning, we can pay off all of our debts.
It's a three-step process.
It's like when you run out of gas on the way to work. Don't just walk home. Buy the gas, go to work, earn the money, and then pay the credit card bill.
Why wouldn't self loathing of homosexuals who hate their propensity become homophobes, and why wouldn't the party of hate and self loathing attract them like flies?
You'd think it was the Catholic Church for gawd's sake.
Followers of Gods use mythological beings to destroy others.
Almost all anti-gay bigots are heterosexual. These pretending-to-be-heterosexual gay men he talks about hold anti-gay beliefs, get married to women, have children etc. because that's the culture they were raised in. A culture that being heterosexual is great and being anything else is an abomination.
The real problem is that constituents want to vote for the wife or husband with the kids, the dog, the picket fence, the church membership but the you can't (or at least it's difficult to) be part of that family and on the road all the time. Being a US senator or congressman means you also have to chose between uprooting your family and not seeing them much.
Max is a genius. Most people are familiar with the phenomenon that the GOP and its infrastructure is overflowing with gay men (eg Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon, Matt Drudge, etc). But Max goes beyond that and explores the reasons why.
This lamebrain needs to read my 2 groundbreaking books on the subject..."The Erotic Inadequacies of the Gay Pee Pee" and "Faggotry Can Be Cured"...it would clear up a lot of his misconceptions and make him understand the fallacious nature of his beliefs
Poor Caltrope69 does everybody want your money. C'mon go capitalist: you're not exploiting enough, multiply yourself, hire some illegal aliens @ sub-minimum wage, get Jeffery Skilling (I hear he's got some time on his hands) to find you an accountant and a tax haven and offshore those assets like most of the corporations and the really rich people and you too can avoid paying your fair share to support our military Empire.
If you agree that the super-rich aren't paying their fair share, why do you object to taxes that attempt to get them to pay their fair share?
The super-rich try to avoid paying taxes and they often succeed. That's no reason to just give up and play dead and put 100% of the burden on the middle class.
You want to tax the rich, but not the middle class. That's reasonable enough, in theory.
History has shown time and time again, that the rich will only handle so much of a tax, before quitting earning.
A lot of them have savings they can survive off of. If capital gains are taxed, they can put their savings in debt. This will remove capital from industries that could produce jobs.
Your plan will have us taxing the middle class, anyway.
My plan is to cut middle class taxes slightly and have the super-rich pay all future tax increases if we decide as a nation that we want to begin balancing our federal budget.
You are saying that it's impossible to tax the super-rich so we might as well give up and not even try.
That sounds suspiciously like a theory that was originally conceived by someone who works for the super-rich.
If, as you claim, the super-rich don't pay taxes at all, let's change that.
Your plan has failed in every circumstance it's ever been tried.
I guess...If objective reality isn't your thing, it's worth another shot.
Again...The government answers to those who pay the most...If they are willing to pay. Not only that, but the rich don't HAVE to make "income." They can live off of savings and not pay any more than you.
In the meantime, no one is producing new jobs, because capital getting recalled from the market stifles growth.
The collusion of a strong central government and the alternating powers of corporations and unions (Depending on who was in power, at the time) caused our crash.
You CAN'T destroy capitalism. Capitalism is the respect, trust, and love human beings have for each other. We like helping each other.
You say the megalomaniacs have destroyed brotherhood? I totally disagree.
Capitalism will not die, no matter how much the thieves want to kill it.
"Capitalism is the respect, trust, and love human beings have for each other."??
That's biased.
Capitalism is commerce plus the movement of cash. It's a tool which, like fire, can kill people if it gets out of hand.
You know how much in favor of respect, trust and love and I know how much you're in favor of them.
But commerce is just a tool for making things and for making sure families have jobs and a decent income. And on that score, it hasn't been working recently.
I understand where people are coming from because unlike most political junkies, I actually listen to people.
When libertarianism is about freedom and tolerating diversity, it's fantastic. It's liberal (in my eyes).
Where libertarians go wrong, I think, is that there skepticism about government isn't tempered by caution about the murders that are committed daily by -another- powerful group in this country: corporations.
Corporations are powerful BECAUSE of the government. Otherwise, they'd just be another method for people to pool their money.
Certainly, you don't think co-ops are evil? How about credit unions? There are dozens of different ways for people to combine resources. This, in itself, isn't inherently wrong.
One little company can hire some drivers and some equipment and remove the top of a mountain.
It can pollute the water supply for thousands of people in the valley below.
A government can tell them to stop. No one else can. That's why some in the corporate world hate government so much. Government is the only entity that can stop a corporation from -murdering- people.
The Founding Fathers knew we needed an effective government to prevent a tyrant from rising up.
If it's not okay for me to walk up to someone and shoot them for no reason, so it shouldn't be simply tolerated if I form a corporation and then hire some employees to walk up to people and shoot them for no reason.
That's what a corporation is doing when it backs a dump truck up to a schoolyard and dumps three tons of lead dust.
Members of Congress who claim we can stop corporations by lawsuits or street protests, then turn around and oppose street protests and lawsuits.
The best way to run a boycott is to have the boycotters elect legislators who will write common sense into law.
Consumers don't have time to do the kind of research it would take to figure out which products were dangerous if we eliminated all regulations and all government inspections.
Consumers have better things to do with their lives than pick up Consumer Reports every time they buy groceries.
You presume that the government will always side with you. It won't. It will just as often side with the corporations and pass corporate friendly laws.
I would prefer a government that CAN'T give corporations a free pass. The bigger you make government, the more you're helping the immoral corporations you despise.
Corporate abuse, 9 times out of 10, is done via collusion with the government.
How would you create a government that can't give corporations a free pass? Have no government?
Governments are corrupt. Corporations are corrupt. And many people are criminals. You don't just throw up your hands and give up. You work to create a system that works.
Corporations are just methods by which people pool money and assets for a common cause. There is nothing inherently corrupt about this situation.
However, when you have a government that is powerful enough to stifle competition and ignore laws that guarantee the safety of individuals, it's natural that a corporation, whose purpose is profit, will take advantage.
A lobbyist who speaks to an empty room is unemployed.
You need some kind of balance of powers and a mechanism for accurately identifying serial killers (human or corporate) and stopping them dead in their tracks.
A corporation is not some type of alien being. It's JUST a group of people who've pooled money.
The employees are not above the law (though they are often treated as such, when government turns a blind eye to their activities), and those who have their money in 401Ks shouldn't be held liable, other than the price of their stocks, for illegal acts committed by the employees of the company.
It's a simple notion.
You don't arrest the owner, when his secretary is embezzling from him.
I agree with you that Congress and the President should do what they should do and should not do what they should not do.
And the same is true for corporations.
The difference is that corporations don't GIVE a flying fuck what we say. Members of Congress actually face elections every two or six years.
If a corporation is out of control and is killing people, such as a tobacco company or horrendous polluter, government is the right mechanism for citizens to use to stop it.
People don't die from tabacco... they die from cancer that may or may not have been caused by smoking tabacco. Cancer is caused by many things... it can even be caused by eating meat, and by consuming alcohol. Be careful what sort of precedent you set for the government to justify intervening for your own good. You may soon find yourself on a strict diet of soy beans, and distilled water.
Corporations are held accountable. They live off voluntary transactions we make with them.
My grandmother was a life-long smoker... lived to be 85 years old. She did not die of cancer or any disease related to smoking.
I would never recommend smoking, and I think it's a stupid habit which is hazardous to your health, but so is smoking Marijuana, which increases the chance of having testicular cancer by 70%.
How opposed are you to Marijuana laws? I am opposed to them.
If the shareholders aren't held liable and the employees aren't held liable and the executives aren't held liable and the board of directors isn't held liable and the customers aren't held liable, who will be held liable?
If, say, a corporation pollutes a valley? And people die.
That's the point. It's immoral to kill hundreds of people.
But it's not illegal unless you pass a law against it or write regulations.
As for tort laws, judges are part of government.
Government is a tool The People use, among other things, to stop corporations from killing people.
It serves a vital purpose.
And the more impressive technology gets, the more corporations will be doing things that unintentionally lead to people dying. Nearby residents, employees, customers.
YOUR solution will lead to the taxing of the Middle Class. You've got this backwards.
We can no longer afford the government. It will either gain control of itself and have to cut all the services you want, on it's own, or it will die a natural death, and you still won't get the services you want.
If you want to eliminate subsidies that government gives to middle class families to make their lives easier and to benefit all of us, which subsidies are you proposing we cut?
What's next? Shooting anyone who's not able-bodied in the street?
We will definitely have to prioritize which will be cut. The supposition that we WON'T have to cut is out of the question, though. We WILL be FORCED to cut some services.
Maybe we should cut back on having children? Of course, I'm opposed to the Chinese method of fining those that do, but I'm not opposed to, say, making the MFG program a final, be-all end all. Pay people for birth control?
There's no humane answer, here...But it is something we'll have to figure out.
Government spending WILL be eliminated here, eventually. Including Medicaid, Medicare, food-stamps, and just about anything that is paid for in dollars.
We're going broke. The FED is devaluing our currency at a record rate.
The entire premise of the Fed is flawed. You could appoint Zeus as the chairman, at this point. It wouldn't change the fact that there is an agency that can, based not on any sort of objective merit, devalue the money that you earn.
Inflation is a tax. The government gets to spend the dollars when they're still worth something, and we get devalued dollars, once they're done.
I find it odd that you protect the Fed, of all things. They're the greatest risk to the middle class.
There's a problem with the fundamental structure of modern economics, which, I will gladly explain in a forum that doesn't limit the amount of characters.
I can give the basics, here, though:
A widget that no one wants to buy has value, according to modern economic theory, which prices widgets according to labor and asset dollars.
The opposing view actually accepts that, even if something cost $500 to make, it could still be worth nothing, because no one wants it.
The vision Obama and I have is that the the private sector can't build the infrastructure that the private sector needs and the private sector won't do the job training that the private sector requires (because you can train someone for years and he may just go off and work for some other company when the training is done).
An economy is a partnership between worker/consumers and scientists/engineers and investors/banks and managers
Oh boy...Look...Government is just one of, probably, an infinite number of ideas for pooling resources. It just happens to be more convenient for those who want things done more quickly, because they can force others, involuntarily, to give money as well.
There is no reason that a group of people couldn't voluntarily pool their money to have roads built.
If everyone in one county chose a committee to design some roads and then pooled their money to have the roads built and hired private contractors, the technical term for that is . . .
Managers think the rule the world. In reality, without government-subsidized scientists to discover the science and government-trained engineers to turn it into technology and government-insured and regulated banks to provide capital and workers to do the work and consumers to provide the ongoing revenue stream and, of course, the earth to provide the raw materials . . .
investors and managers would quickly go bankrupt.
It's a collaborative effort, no matter how ungrateful managers are.
I voluntarily loan capital to people to develop and produce products through my 457 and pension accounts. They invent stuff...I get a return. No government needed.
IBM has done a wonderful job of developing ideas. Apple and Microsoft, as well. Let's not even mention the Japanese companies.
Henry Ford didn't get his ideas from the government...Though after he became successful, he spent quite some time using the government for his own ends.
The difference between the two is that the public sector doesn't waste hundreds of millions of dollars every year bashing the private sector in every branch of the media.
Reagan just wanted to spend money on cool weapons. He wanted laser beams on sharks.
Milton Friedman, Reagan's chief economist, wanted Cap N' Trade. Something that, perversely almost, the Repugnatins are against today...Because the Demobrats want it.
You won't convince me by being partisan. I'll gladly help you beat up on the Repugnatins. Of course, I oppose both sides of this false debate, for different reasons, So I have no issue with beating up the Demobrats, either.
Immoral acts will be committed by people of all sorts. The only issue here is as to whether the government is in on it, or not.
I'm not OK with the government helping people impinge on the rights of others.
Taking someone's Life, Liberty, or their ability to pursue happiness is immoral. Whether it's done by an individual, or done by a group of individuals, these rights are innate.
The demobrats are perfectly content to take property that doesn't belong to them.
Why not just elect legislators who will write the laws so that all three groups (legislators, corporations, and individuals) cannot coercively violate the rights of citizens unless they have some damn good reason?
You are asking those who get their pay via coercion to regulate those who don't....And you TRUST them to do it?
I hate to accuse you of being simple-minded...But are you REALLY this naive?
Why do you think a constitution was even WRITTEN, if you have this much trust in government? Do you think those who demanded the 10 amendments were just being polite?
We HAVE 10 amendments WRITTEN INTO our constitution BECAUSE government is untrustworthy.
Max Blumenthal's views, as presented; seem too overly simplistic of a stand. It's far too popular to criticize the so-called Right wing when much of the Dems and Left hold similar values and practice.
Demonizing your opponents is a weak form of discussion, or book writing for that matter. It's also very easy to do because you don't have to think past your own nose.
The real reason this is being presented this way? To sell books at somebody else's 'cost'.
no reliableinsider, democrats want to significantly improve the lives of working class americans, and yes, to tax all of the very wealthy that benefitted so dramatically under 8 years of bush and the g.o.p.
If you get rid of income taxes, that takes the burden of paying off the Reagan-Bush-Bush National Debt off of the shoulders of the super-rich and shifts it to the shoulders of Middle Class Americans.
Why would you want to do that?
Middle Class Americans are being forced out of their homes ALREADY because our wages have been stagnant for eight years.
caltrop we do not punish accomplishment. we punish greed. we punish excess. especially if that excess came at the expense of screwing workers, the environment,or manipulating govt. for their selfishness and greed
Oh...And the Demobrats have NO ISSUE with increasing government power.
They're just too stupid to realize that the weapon they use against the other side is the same weapon (That they've provided with more power) that's used against them, once the tables are turned.
Repugnatins and Demobrats oughtta just have a duel, where they kill each other.
Why would the Democratic Party punish accomplishment?
If the choice is to burden Paris Hilton and the other super-rich with taxes or burden the Middle Class with taxes, the Democratic Party says that the Middle Class just can't AFFORD right now to pay higher taxes.
Wow...When you collectivists smell blood, you're ruthless, aren't you?
Anyway. So far as I know, this was already passed by Bush. It was also passed by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
An exit tax is one of the death knells of a country. It's evidence that people WANT to leave the country enough that the government has to punish them for doing so.
Why would the Democratic Party punish accomplishment?
If the choice is to burden Paris Hilton and the other super-rich with taxes or burden the Middle Class with taxes, the Democratic Party says that the Middle Class just can't AFFORD right now to pay higher taxes.
If you want no one to pay taxes, as I'm sure you claim, then the only way to do that is to build a strong economy and to stop pouring all our money into the hands of military contractors and down the rathole of infinite depth that is Iraq.
The reason that eliminating the income tax would place more of a burden on individuals is that we would have to significantly increase other taxes in order to stay revenue neutral.
If you eliminate a tax that hits the rich, you would have to increase taxes that hit the middle class.
Why cut taxes for the rich (people who are paid $1 million, $10 million, $100 million a year) and increase them for the middle class? That would hurt many, many more people than it would help.
Kill all the right-wing Christians and fundie Muslims. That way we will have a more balanced and peaceful planet.
dariowestern 10 months ago
you have christian values mixed up with family values sometimes they are the same when it comes to bigotry christian family values go comunist and are far away from american family values don't call it homophobe don't call them represt call them what they are .they are bigots and if you are bigotouse of one thing you will be bigotouse to what ever they think is justifiable to be bigotouse of
MrDaleaaaa 10 months ago
you have christian values mixed up with family values sometimes they are the same when it comes to bigotry christian family values go comunist and are far away from american family values
MrDaleaaaa 10 months ago
Max's book is phenomenal.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
mia krishner and max blumenthal...my favourite jews..^^
05giacomo 1 year ago
Idaho's Craig was in Philadelphia this week and hired a male companion through an online site so he could perform oral on the companion and then have the companion whip him with his belt. Then this example of moral fortitude went back to his wife to pass on whatever he caught during his dalliance. What a lovely man.
JerZGirl2 1 year ago
I think this guy is right on the money, and the facts about those peoples actions seem to prove him out.
enkelin32 1 year ago
All puritans are hypocrites because puritanism is an impossible ideal.
RookhKshatriya 1 year ago 3
This is so fucking wickedly wrong, what an asshole. Psychology, the ultimate political weapon.
chewbaca1989 1 year ago
distressed7
i know you are someone i dont want to talk to. you know how i know that, because of what you just said. see how i use evidence to proceed with a theory.
thesparitan 2 years ago
@thesparitan Well. Maybe I am wrong. If I am I apologize. I will admit that I jumped too much. I apologize for that. I don't know you, you're right. So, tell me how do you feel about this adversarial hate mongering in this nation? I myself resent being categorized that I live in a blue state or a red state. We're being divided again. Another type of Civil War? Possibly?
distressed7 2 years ago
i like it when people are adversarial, i think its a good thing. when someone says my beliefs are stupid and i am stupid for believing them, i dont have a big problem with that. sometimes i fuck with people for fun and sometimes i am serious. if someone wants a honest conversation i will always give it.
what i dont like is irrational hate, and propaganda. i have never been a fan of that, also i dont like hero worship and leader worship. i dont like obama but i voted for him.
thesparitan 2 years ago
@thesparitan Cool answer. I am trying not to fuck with people. I am not trying to sound holy. I am getting worried about this nation. You do not at all seem violent. However, I think the nation is starting to go over the top.I too,felt betrayed by Obama. he threw money at the bankrollers just like GW. He is escalating the war in the M.E. and vets have told me that the war is going badly. The war is pouring over the borders. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, some not even Muslims coming in after O's move.
distressed7 2 years ago
look dude, i was an activist and i tried to change the world, i couldnt change a small part of a city. you are not going to change anything, this nation is doomed.
no party or leader or movement will change that. look to history, ever empire goes through this and we are the same.
its over, dont worry about. you have 2 choices, you can try to move to another country like me or you can just relax and prepare for the worst.
i am a nihilist now, read some camus and relax sisyphus.
thesparitan 2 years ago
I supported him but I'm not sure if I still like him. I thought he would be special but he's just another politician and I'll treat him as such.
Savior20061 1 year ago
@thesparitan What did I say? I apologize and ask a general question and you resort to rejection? A cryptic answer? What evidence? An apology? Interesting and sad.
distressed7 2 years ago
dont apologize i dont care. it is your problem not mine. you didnt offend me.
look i really dont want to do this with you. you seem to be to sensitive and a not very stable person. you responded so much you seem to be to depend on the internet for relationships. i may hurt your feelings but it could health you out. no one should care what someone says online, lets hope you take my words with little importance.
the country is going to fall, this cannot be avoided, why fight it.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Wow, loudest mouthbreathing ever
MrQuickwit09 2 years ago
Conservatism= reprepssed homosexuals who are stuck in the closet
Wtfgames 2 years ago
@Wtfgames Yeh sure. All conservatives are closet homosexuals. That's really brilliant. Totally brilliant. What amazing brains.
distressed7 2 years ago
Conservatives are gay. I think the right means grab the guy on your rights hog.
btc8128 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Homophobia....blah,,,blllaaaahaaalalbblahhahh....penis circumference....fascinating discoveries...blah.blah,blah,blllaaahahah,blah...the religious right...homophobic..said something totally overlooked...he spanks people...(laughter) ..blahblahblah...blah.(clapping)Meanwhile the battles rage. Afghans die face down...Islam is uniting...Iran can handle Israel into a Pyhrric Victory. "Straight"? and Homo Amerikans crawl into their clean sheets and fart, breed, have sex, make money, eat, shit etc.
distressed7 2 years ago
Who gives a fuck? Seriously, if we are all gay? So? What damned difference does it make? If gay guys deep down want women on a certain level, I don't give a shit either. What is bad is that we are headed to a false New World Order. It is nothing new. It is the same old world order with a misrepresentation of fact attached to the thing's lie of newness. We are coming into an age where iron shackles will be on us. Whether seen or not it will be horrid if we do stop these monsters of the G20.
distressed7 2 years ago
Shame and self-loathing are a powerful tools for control and submission. I believe people often externalize their own self-hatred by demonizing the actions of others. The people who are the most fervently demand society ban or repress something are usually the most conflicted in their individual relationship to that thing — porn, abortion, homosexuality are rife with examples. Then again some people are just d-bags.
marksfox 2 years ago
Yet, you ban and control anything your libTURD brains consider loathsome to your religion of self. Dude. One can go to any adult bookstore, and even find a corner to whack theirself. Enjoy. No one will stop you. Have your world. Yet, you've bred this backlash, & while you're fighting "Christians", you will taken by Islam. Because frankly, the libturd world is a dry, cold and unspiritual world. It is a world of utter heartlessness amid its social concerns.True anarchy breeds closeness. It must.
distressed7 2 years ago
hehe hot! Now sites like GayBangz{ D ot) com are way better though for gay men
Gaybrandyhot88 2 years ago
There is no doubt this pile of shit "christianity" is a blight. I tried to fit into right wing type churches and could never fit in. I always got into it with either the pastor or one of their henchmen. My politics is not rightist. Yet, I do not beleive in gun control. I grew up around immigrants who lived through Nazi and Commie regimes. These guys said they always grab the guns before they grab the people. I am a Nam Era Marine who hated that as well. Both lib & NeoDork are killing this nation
distressed7 2 years ago
The minority of Americans who chose to own weapons have an incredible amount of latitude, even with more progressive laws regulating how weapons are sold and carried. The reality is that the philosophy of Religious Right — who share a huge overlap with gun-nuts — are much more aligned with the Fascistic practices of the Nazis or Soviets then any contemporary Liberal.
marksfox 2 years ago
Contemporay liberals are just in many cases, going to end what Soviets and Nazis did. They ended rights to own guns. The people in Europe have a different perspective than the people of America. Fascism and messianic Communism were both promising a utopia. There is that similar attitude among many liberals. There is still a definite self-righteousness within the utopian liberality.
distressed7 2 years ago
self-righteousness among liberals? oh please. i'm assuming you are one of the supporters of "God told me to attack Iraq" Bush or "Let's triple the deficit with a useless military expansion after the USSR was already on the brink of collapse" Reagan. I hate it when neocons throw around the word "liberal" like a swear word. Economic slumps in American history are the fault of conservatives. Great Depression=Hoover. Latest recession=Bush. Recession before Bush=Reagan. Please, just shut up
TillMakaveliReturns 2 years ago
No dumbfuck, I am not. Bush is one of the biggest blights this land has ever seen, let alone gets away with leading. Alot of that, my 2 dimensional libturd loon does not fit into your flipside of the right mentality. You know, what's superbly salient in your opening line is your reference to "God told me ..." Let alone being unable to see your own "enlightened" shortcomings. The messianic guilt trips from the left. LOL>
distressed7 2 years ago
Messianic? Check your facts, Bush publicly stated that God told him to strike Afghanistan. With the religious nutcases on the right, who the hell are you to be calling anyone messianic? Typical hypocrisy from the CONservatives
TillMakaveliReturns 2 years ago
I am no conservative dear one. Far from it. It is a gradual anarchy. A libertarianism of one step beyond. I suggest you read the writings of Emma Goldman and people like her. By the way, any real far left person sees the uselessness of your lukewarm world. Messianism comes in many a neat package. Yes, Bush is an obvious & religious type. You can see the pathetic impotency of your liberality in the gutlessness of this wretched "president" Obama. His turd VP, Biden who promoted Iraq deceptively.
distressed7 2 years ago
lol
btc8128 2 years ago
you need to realize you have a problem. you need help and you need to get out of the house this is not doing you any good
thesparitan 2 years ago
@thesparitan I realize that this is not doing anyone any good. You know that the religious right demonizes people and you do the same. You spin the stories as you see it and they spin the story as they see it. Ultimately, you are all the same. I really don't know who's more disgusting the libturds or the religious right. The reason why it does no good in the eand to argue with either of you, is that it does no good. You're both equally self-righteous.
distressed7 2 years ago
you know something i have never trusted people that mutate a name to make it seem more ridiculous.
i thought that stopped at 7th grade. so i am the same as the religious right, and you dont even know what i believe or even know my name or even had a discussion with me beyond a few words. and you know that i am the same as a right wing movement
wow a little arrogant are we
thesparitan 2 years ago
Yes, and by the way. Obama continues the same policies. Nothing has changed. You know. I really wish you morons would forget your dicks for one week and think of the carnage and the mind control that is wrecking all of our individualities. I somebody wants to suck off another adult. Fine. Get over it. It's a minor issue. Who gives a shit about penis circumference? But goofed up morons who cannot keep their sexuality in the confines of a relationship need attention like a bedwetting child.
distressed7 2 years ago
Fuck you.Slick Willy passed the single most damaging enactment since pro-slavery. It is the "Gramm, Bliley, Leach Act.(1999) It gave the banks the right to leach onto combining retail and investment banking, and also insurance. He repealed the acts of FDR stopping the banks from integrating and becoming psychotic. Slick did this, along with cramming anti-environmental, pro-corporate H.R.'s to insure his pardon by GW & waiting indictments when he exited. Now look at us."Too big to fall". WeRToast
distressed7 2 years ago
I like your argument about hypocrisy. Those preaching should be 'better' by their actions rather than just words. However, to be human is to err & all struggle. Putting them up to burn for a show; for $, endorsement of oneself & revenge is no different than the hypocrisy exposed.
Such simplification of a us/them/Conservative/Liberal etc comparison without the intellectual scrutiny only shows unfettered bias inspired by a desire to self deceivingly correct one's own past. It's preadolescent.
drchiodo 2 years ago
that was for goofyreligion3.
respectfully.
drchiodo 2 years ago
(continued) So let me go after his arguments.
He asserts that government's duty is to offer healthcare and education in another video, which consists of confiscating property (taxes) from one group and distributing it to another. From what I've seen, he's about as authoritarian as they get.
Funny he should speak of the religious right's hypocrisy in light of his own. He is as much an enemy of natural rights as the neocons. Like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Olbermann, he spouts worthless rhetoric.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
Both sides are self-righteous and filled with their own indignations. The Hegelian Dialectic plays out well here. Thesis="Patriotism"-blood n' guts bullshit, Holy Crusades, anti-terror terrorists, their "God", etc.-- Antithesis=You need me, I am an enlightened libturd. "If you don't dig the gayboy, you're sick and scared." White man's guilt, revisited. etc. This group resists gov't yet they want weaponless populaces. That's great. NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY. Ooooh! Now I'm really bad.
distressed7 2 years ago
Dude, come out of the closet already.
marksfox 2 years ago
That's probably your problem. When all else follows accuse others of your dilemna. That's not the point religion boy,with sexual wonder and penis envy over your wretched preachers. Besides if that was true, it wouldn't matter stupid. I am not in your world of lies.
distressed7 2 years ago
I think your just as fascinated with that as anyone making those accusations. Just telescoping your fears onto me. I guess libturds are pretty much as stupid as contards.
distressed7 2 years ago
This character intrigues me, which is why I accessed this video. I should note that I am a conservative and a Christian, though I do not belong to the Christian right (I skew toward traditional conservatism/ paleolibertarianism).
His arguments lack substance. They carry the same weight that neoconservative arguments against "liberals" do--they're ad hominems.(continued)
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
I agree with you. In this nation of lies you are forced to join one camp or another. No critical thinking should ever be utilized. It's either you're for us, or against us. Even among the so-called liberals this is the rule. The right takes your mind through mindless loyalties and uses traditional guilt systems. The left is religious as well. They insult your very being because you will not give into their messianisms of "new eras"i.e. lies ex. Obama mama!Yet, we are still killing and torturing.
distressed7 2 years ago
Religion always creates monsters. Look at the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - three of the most murderous organizations in the history of humankind.
All religion should be banned as psychologically damaging to human beings. It is worse than smoking and drinking - it poisons entire populations like a rampant and extremely malignant virus.
How to get rid of it - an innoculation of reason and a healthy diet of facts would be very beneficial.
leland61 2 years ago
I have seen as much radicalism in absence of religion. I trust you know the examples, so I won't burden you with them.
That you suggest we ban religion points to your own authoritarian leanings. The philosophy of liberty, through such vessels as John Locke and even Immanuel Kant, has found friends in both the religious and atheists, and has been justified by religious arguments.
You can't ignore this, as I can't ignore atheist Ayn Rand's grand philosophy of economic and individual liberty.
SeventhHanyou 2 years ago
That's great, "all religion should be banned" - "Religion always creates monsters". A retard like you is one micrometer away from falling off your barstool into the otherside after a few more sips of your own religious liquor. Even though I see "church" to be a sold out pack of lies in some cases, your "healthy diet of facts" is A. Not really fact, and B. Not very healthy. I asked another Messianic lib-activist where his missions and soup kitchens were.He snuck off.I know, "Da' guv' feed y'all."
distressed7 2 years ago
god can't tell me what to do, I'll put my dick into whatever or whoever I fucking please!
Shadowlit001 2 years ago
Now that's what I call a clear definition of what the patriots of this land fell and died face down for. God bless you and your diseased dick.
distressed7 2 years ago
Don't Type Drunk — especially if you're drunk on your own self righteous aggrandization.
marksfox 2 years ago
Yeah, but didn't Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broaderick? And Kathleen Willey? And a few others?
And didn't Ted Kennedy leave Mary Jo Kopeckne to die, because he didn't want to go to jail?
Croscros72 2 years ago
I don't idealize government.
I HATE torture and I believe corporations are destroying democracy.
I believe you idealize corporations--even as you agree that corporations are destroying democracy.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Why is this still a topic in 2009!!
Its all so pathetic , to hold onto old Christian values, who were all thought up by the Church to fill there pockets and to enhance there power over the believers. THE CHURCH IS A HAOX.
esisgreen 2 years ago
I don't see what people accomplish by voting for neither party.
It's just like tuning in, turning on, and dropping out.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If someone borrows a lot of money and gets a good haircut and buys a good suit and gets a good job and works hard and gets lucky, he will earn a lot of money and he can pay off his debts.
That's paying off one's debts by borrowing.
That's capitalism.
Capitalism at its best is borrowing money to accomplish what you otherwise couldn't accomplish.
I don't see why people claim to find that incomprehensible.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Borrowing is okay if you are actually going to use the money to make the investments that will lead to real earnings in the near future.
That's what we're doing right now as a nation.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
We're not going broke.
Going broke is having the inability to earn and the inability to borrow.
We have both.
What we've got to do is borrow now and make investments that allow us to earn as much as we are capable of earning.
Then, once we are earning, we can pay off all of our debts.
It's a three-step process.
It's like when you run out of gas on the way to work. Don't just walk home. Buy the gas, go to work, earn the money, and then pay the credit card bill.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Don't forget Jimmy Swaggart. Caught with
having sexual relations with a prostitute.
He then cried in in his church asking God forgiveness even he had to sweep floor.
akamal1113 2 years ago
Same thing went on during the dark ages with the religious
The catholic church, GAY!
Dogma style!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 2 years ago
The highest percentage of porn watchers are in Utah. The state that gave McCain the highest percentage of votes. You gotta love statistics
melora72 2 years ago 5
Why wouldn't self loathing of homosexuals who hate their propensity become homophobes, and why wouldn't the party of hate and self loathing attract them like flies?
You'd think it was the Catholic Church for gawd's sake.
Followers of Gods use mythological beings to destroy others.
Taliban, anyone?
Yourdeadmeat69 2 years ago 5
Almost all anti-gay bigots are heterosexual. These pretending-to-be-heterosexual gay men he talks about hold anti-gay beliefs, get married to women, have children etc. because that's the culture they were raised in. A culture that being heterosexual is great and being anything else is an abomination.
NOtoPROP8 2 years ago 2
Hypocrisy IS obnoxious.
Admitting a lack of belief in god, or other imaginary beings, is a good start.
caltrop69 2 years ago
The real problem is that constituents want to vote for the wife or husband with the kids, the dog, the picket fence, the church membership but the you can't (or at least it's difficult to) be part of that family and on the road all the time. Being a US senator or congressman means you also have to chose between uprooting your family and not seeing them much.
felixthehuman 2 years ago
Max is a genius. Most people are familiar with the phenomenon that the GOP and its infrastructure is overflowing with gay men (eg Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon, Matt Drudge, etc). But Max goes beyond that and explores the reasons why.
FreedomUSA1 2 years ago 5
This lamebrain needs to read my 2 groundbreaking books on the subject..."The Erotic Inadequacies of the Gay Pee Pee" and "Faggotry Can Be Cured"...it would clear up a lot of his misconceptions and make him understand the fallacious nature of his beliefs
Armigerous 2 years ago
Poor Caltrope69 does everybody want your money. C'mon go capitalist: you're not exploiting enough, multiply yourself, hire some illegal aliens @ sub-minimum wage, get Jeffery Skilling (I hear he's got some time on his hands) to find you an accountant and a tax haven and offshore those assets like most of the corporations and the really rich people and you too can avoid paying your fair share to support our military Empire.
MrCallowayrm 2 years ago
MrCallowayrm:
?
Why is this addressed to me?
If it was done intentionally, then you aren't very good at building strawmen.
It is, interesting, however, because it parallels a debate I'm having on another thread.
That the reason "taxing the rich" doesn't work, is because either they, or their money, moves away.
caltrop69 2 years ago
caltrop69,
If you agree that the super-rich aren't paying their fair share, why do you object to taxes that attempt to get them to pay their fair share?
The super-rich try to avoid paying taxes and they often succeed. That's no reason to just give up and play dead and put 100% of the burden on the middle class.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
They will continue to succeed because they are more mobile, better able to use the government, and just BETTER at getting out of taxes.
Do you argue against other facts of nature like gravity, or rain, as well?
Why do you keep suggesting that I want to put a tax burden on anyone? I hate taxes. I hate overbloated government.
Is this the new false dichotomy? "Those who aren't for soaking the rich are FOR soaking the MIDDLE CLASS"
I'm not for taxing either of them.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If you are not for taxing either the super-rich or the middle class, then first you have to find a way to eliminate all government spending.
Then you have to pay off the national debt.
Only then can you eliminate taxes.
What is your plan for eliminating all federal and state spending?
You want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, the police department, the U.S. Military, upkeep and maintenance on roads and highways?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
OK...So, in summary:
You want to tax the rich, but not the middle class. That's reasonable enough, in theory.
History has shown time and time again, that the rich will only handle so much of a tax, before quitting earning.
A lot of them have savings they can survive off of. If capital gains are taxed, they can put their savings in debt. This will remove capital from industries that could produce jobs.
Your plan will have us taxing the middle class, anyway.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Well, no.
My plan is to cut middle class taxes slightly and have the super-rich pay all future tax increases if we decide as a nation that we want to begin balancing our federal budget.
You are saying that it's impossible to tax the super-rich so we might as well give up and not even try.
That sounds suspiciously like a theory that was originally conceived by someone who works for the super-rich.
If, as you claim, the super-rich don't pay taxes at all, let's change that.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Your plan has failed in every circumstance it's ever been tried.
I guess...If objective reality isn't your thing, it's worth another shot.
Again...The government answers to those who pay the most...If they are willing to pay. Not only that, but the rich don't HAVE to make "income." They can live off of savings and not pay any more than you.
In the meantime, no one is producing new jobs, because capital getting recalled from the market stifles growth.
caltrop69 2 years ago
caltrop69,
Are you a libertarian? Or an -anarchist-?
What failed in America when the world economy collapsed under Bush's leadership, obviously, was THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
They were free to do whatever they wanted, a deregulatory paradise . . .
and they destroyed capitalism!
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Nonsense!
The collusion of a strong central government and the alternating powers of corporations and unions (Depending on who was in power, at the time) caused our crash.
You CAN'T destroy capitalism. Capitalism is the respect, trust, and love human beings have for each other. We like helping each other.
You say the megalomaniacs have destroyed brotherhood? I totally disagree.
Capitalism will not die, no matter how much the thieves want to kill it.
caltrop69 2 years ago
"Capitalism is the respect, trust, and love human beings have for each other."??
That's biased.
Capitalism is commerce plus the movement of cash. It's a tool which, like fire, can kill people if it gets out of hand.
You know how much in favor of respect, trust and love and I know how much you're in favor of them.
But commerce is just a tool for making things and for making sure families have jobs and a decent income. And on that score, it hasn't been working recently.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Oh...And to answer your question...I guess, being realistic, I'd have to side more with the Libertarians than the anarchists.
The only difference is that one group wants more government than another.
I still think there are issues that only a monopoly can solve, like the environment, limited resources, and other amorphous things like that.
Don't ask me for solutions on these issues. I don't think humans solve problems until they have no choice.
caltrop69 2 years ago
I understand where people are coming from because unlike most political junkies, I actually listen to people.
When libertarianism is about freedom and tolerating diversity, it's fantastic. It's liberal (in my eyes).
Where libertarians go wrong, I think, is that there skepticism about government isn't tempered by caution about the murders that are committed daily by -another- powerful group in this country: corporations.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Corporations are powerful BECAUSE of the government. Otherwise, they'd just be another method for people to pool their money.
Certainly, you don't think co-ops are evil? How about credit unions? There are dozens of different ways for people to combine resources. This, in itself, isn't inherently wrong.
caltrop69 2 years ago
That's not true at all.
One little company can hire some drivers and some equipment and remove the top of a mountain.
It can pollute the water supply for thousands of people in the valley below.
A government can tell them to stop. No one else can. That's why some in the corporate world hate government so much. Government is the only entity that can stop a corporation from -murdering- people.
The Founding Fathers knew we needed an effective government to prevent a tyrant from rising up.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If it's not okay for me to walk up to someone and shoot them for no reason, so it shouldn't be simply tolerated if I form a corporation and then hire some employees to walk up to people and shoot them for no reason.
That's what a corporation is doing when it backs a dump truck up to a schoolyard and dumps three tons of lead dust.
Members of Congress who claim we can stop corporations by lawsuits or street protests, then turn around and oppose street protests and lawsuits.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Indeed. It is not OK for corporations to murder.
The problem is that our government won't be any help. They're paid for by the corporations (Left AND right).
I would favor boycotts and other free-market means to prevent this activity.
I'm not sure that granting the power to those who are paid by those they watch, to keep watch, is the best solution.
I see a bit of a conflict of interests.
caltrop69 2 years ago
The best way to run a boycott is to have the boycotters elect legislators who will write common sense into law.
Consumers don't have time to do the kind of research it would take to figure out which products were dangerous if we eliminated all regulations and all government inspections.
Consumers have better things to do with their lives than pick up Consumer Reports every time they buy groceries.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
And those who get elected will do a fantastic job of paying back those who paid for their election. Again...You aren't being realistic.
And...what's with this hyperbolic nonsense about eliminating ALL regulations?
caltrop69 2 years ago
Government agencies and corporations and individual citizens are all sometimes corrupt.
But we need all three if we want the economy to function.
Of course I'm in favor of less corruption. That's why I want everyone to vote Democratic.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Funny. I would think that you'd want people to vote Libertarian, if you disliked corruption.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Corporations have nearly destroyed our democracy.
And, for whatever reason, there are no groups powerful enough to stand up to a corporation that is engaging in murder OTHER than
1. government or
2. the print media.
And we all know that the print media is an endangered species because people are voluntarily illiterate. They know -how- to read, but -choose- not to.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Here's where I see a mistake in your reasoning:
You presume that the government will always side with you. It won't. It will just as often side with the corporations and pass corporate friendly laws.
I would prefer a government that CAN'T give corporations a free pass. The bigger you make government, the more you're helping the immoral corporations you despise.
Corporate abuse, 9 times out of 10, is done via collusion with the government.
caltrop69 2 years ago
How would you create a government that can't give corporations a free pass? Have no government?
Governments are corrupt. Corporations are corrupt. And many people are criminals. You don't just throw up your hands and give up. You work to create a system that works.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I think people are generally good.
Corporations are just methods by which people pool money and assets for a common cause. There is nothing inherently corrupt about this situation.
However, when you have a government that is powerful enough to stifle competition and ignore laws that guarantee the safety of individuals, it's natural that a corporation, whose purpose is profit, will take advantage.
A lobbyist who speaks to an empty room is unemployed.
caltrop69 2 years ago
But, like fire, corporations can get out of control and kill a lot of people so you have to keep them contained.
The anti-trust division of the Justice Department doesn't stifle competition. It protects the free market.
I think you're saying that we need government to enforce laws to guarantee the safety of individuals. I agree.
If government is impotent, there is no one to stop corporations from killing people.
Or to stop individual citizens from killing people.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Monopolies that aren't produced by the government are a myth.
There's always a greater number of people with a greater amount of money, who can put the company that is selling below margin out of business.
The monopolist myth isn't even accepted by most mainstream economists, at this point.
caltrop69 2 years ago
You need some kind of balance of powers and a mechanism for accurately identifying serial killers (human or corporate) and stopping them dead in their tracks.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
A corporation is not some type of alien being. It's JUST a group of people who've pooled money.
The employees are not above the law (though they are often treated as such, when government turns a blind eye to their activities), and those who have their money in 401Ks shouldn't be held liable, other than the price of their stocks, for illegal acts committed by the employees of the company.
It's a simple notion.
You don't arrest the owner, when his secretary is embezzling from him.
caltrop69 2 years ago
A corporation is NOT just a group of people.
You could go into a corporation and replace every single person twenty at a time and the corporation would still be there.
It's an elephant. The people just ride on top trying to control it.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
*chuckle*
Fine. A corporation ISN'T a group of stockholders who have pooled their money and the employees who work for them....
It's an elephant.
Shall I throw in the towel after having been so severely battered by your logic?
caltrop69 2 years ago
I agree with you that Congress and the President should do what they should do and should not do what they should not do.
And the same is true for corporations.
The difference is that corporations don't GIVE a flying fuck what we say. Members of Congress actually face elections every two or six years.
If a corporation is out of control and is killing people, such as a tobacco company or horrendous polluter, government is the right mechanism for citizens to use to stop it.
What else?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
People don't die from tabacco... they die from cancer that may or may not have been caused by smoking tabacco. Cancer is caused by many things... it can even be caused by eating meat, and by consuming alcohol. Be careful what sort of precedent you set for the government to justify intervening for your own good. You may soon find yourself on a strict diet of soy beans, and distilled water.
Corporations are held accountable. They live off voluntary transactions we make with them.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Tobacco causes cancer.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
So does living in the wrong area.
You should be able to sue everyone who drives an automobile, by this logic.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Correction, Tobacco may cause cancer.
My grandmother was a life-long smoker... lived to be 85 years old. She did not die of cancer or any disease related to smoking.
I would never recommend smoking, and I think it's a stupid habit which is hazardous to your health, but so is smoking Marijuana, which increases the chance of having testicular cancer by 70%.
How opposed are you to Marijuana laws? I am opposed to them.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
This is true, as well.
I think the discussion was regarding the intentional and malicious harm of human beings by individuals working within corporations.
I think ReliableInsider would have us jailing old men who had stock in the company, because an employee decided to do something illegal.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Did I suggest that there was a mechanism, other than government, by which laws should be enforced?
Of course if individuals working for a corporation do something illegal, they should be punished.
I wouldn't have the old folks whose 401Ks ARE the capital of the corporation tossed in jail, though.
Only INDIVIDUALS are capable of immoral acts. A corporation, while a "legal" entity, isn't actually alive.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If the shareholders aren't held liable and the employees aren't held liable and the executives aren't held liable and the board of directors isn't held liable and the customers aren't held liable, who will be held liable?
If, say, a corporation pollutes a valley? And people die.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Tort law is alive, well, and functional. People are allowed to sue companies for damages.
If someone does something illegal, they can be jailed.
What other regulations do you want? Would you prefer that companies be nationalized?
Perhaps we could go full on communist.
caltrop69 2 years ago
That's the point. It's immoral to kill hundreds of people.
But it's not illegal unless you pass a law against it or write regulations.
As for tort laws, judges are part of government.
Government is a tool The People use, among other things, to stop corporations from killing people.
It serves a vital purpose.
And the more impressive technology gets, the more corporations will be doing things that unintentionally lead to people dying. Nearby residents, employees, customers.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
God grant me the serenity
To appreciate the corporations that make good stuff,
The courage to challenge corporations who are trying to kill me,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Your solution seems to be to try to make the middle class pay the super-rich's taxes.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Why do you want me to repeat myself?
YOUR solution will lead to the taxing of the Middle Class. You've got this backwards.
We can no longer afford the government. It will either gain control of itself and have to cut all the services you want, on it's own, or it will die a natural death, and you still won't get the services you want.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If you want to eliminate subsidies that government gives to middle class families to make their lives easier and to benefit all of us, which subsidies are you proposing we cut?
What's next? Shooting anyone who's not able-bodied in the street?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
We will definitely have to prioritize which will be cut. The supposition that we WON'T have to cut is out of the question, though. We WILL be FORCED to cut some services.
Maybe we should cut back on having children? Of course, I'm opposed to the Chinese method of fining those that do, but I'm not opposed to, say, making the MFG program a final, be-all end all. Pay people for birth control?
There's no humane answer, here...But it is something we'll have to figure out.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Government spending WILL be eliminated here, eventually. Including Medicaid, Medicare, food-stamps, and just about anything that is paid for in dollars.
We're going broke. The FED is devaluing our currency at a record rate.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If you want an outstanding Fed Chairman, elect an outstanding president.
That's how the system works.
How is the Federal Reserve System any different from any other department or agency?
If it uses its power to harm the country, it will harm the country.
The same thing is true for the Department of Defense. Should we "End the DoD"?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
The entire premise of the Fed is flawed. You could appoint Zeus as the chairman, at this point. It wouldn't change the fact that there is an agency that can, based not on any sort of objective merit, devalue the money that you earn.
Inflation is a tax. The government gets to spend the dollars when they're still worth something, and we get devalued dollars, once they're done.
I find it odd that you protect the Fed, of all things. They're the greatest risk to the middle class.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Economists disagree with you.
Therefore, no president will ever eliminate the central bank.
You're wasting your time.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Economists disagree with you.
Politicians, on the right and left, however, think you're great.
You back up their "run up more credit to get us out of debt" mentality. Both the Repugnatins and Demobrats are down with this sort of thinking.
Of course...Then falls Rome.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Very, very few economists want to return to the gold standard.
That's why you keep seeing the same names over and over again! And why Ron Paul treats them to well! They're rare!
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
More than you think.
There's a problem with the fundamental structure of modern economics, which, I will gladly explain in a forum that doesn't limit the amount of characters.
I can give the basics, here, though:
A widget that no one wants to buy has value, according to modern economic theory, which prices widgets according to labor and asset dollars.
The opposing view actually accepts that, even if something cost $500 to make, it could still be worth nothing, because no one wants it.
caltrop69 2 years ago
The vision Obama and I have is that the the private sector can't build the infrastructure that the private sector needs and the private sector won't do the job training that the private sector requires (because you can train someone for years and he may just go off and work for some other company when the training is done).
An economy is a partnership between worker/consumers and scientists/engineers and investors/banks and managers
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Oh boy...Look...Government is just one of, probably, an infinite number of ideas for pooling resources. It just happens to be more convenient for those who want things done more quickly, because they can force others, involuntarily, to give money as well.
There is no reason that a group of people couldn't voluntarily pool their money to have roads built.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If everyone in one county chose a committee to design some roads and then pooled their money to have the roads built and hired private contractors, the technical term for that is . . .
'government'.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Government uses coercion (Force. Violence)
Learn the difference.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Managers think the rule the world. In reality, without government-subsidized scientists to discover the science and government-trained engineers to turn it into technology and government-insured and regulated banks to provide capital and workers to do the work and consumers to provide the ongoing revenue stream and, of course, the earth to provide the raw materials . . .
investors and managers would quickly go bankrupt.
It's a collaborative effort, no matter how ungrateful managers are.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I voluntarily loan capital to people to develop and produce products through my 457 and pension accounts. They invent stuff...I get a return. No government needed.
IBM has done a wonderful job of developing ideas. Apple and Microsoft, as well. Let's not even mention the Japanese companies.
Henry Ford didn't get his ideas from the government...Though after he became successful, he spent quite some time using the government for his own ends.
caltrop69 2 years ago
The private sector certainly has a role to play and everyone should applaud the private sector for its efforts.
Many of the things that the private sector is incapable of doing nevertheless must still be done.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I already addressed this. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, with these multiple threads.
caltrop69 2 years ago
And that's not something imposed by liberals. It's just the way capitalism has always worked in every country.
Capitalism without government is . . . Somalia.
Or today's Afghanistan.
I'm not particularly pro-government. I just think that it's ideology to suggest eliminating either the private sector or the public sector.
Both sectors should be run well.
And it's the private sector corrupting the public sector, not the other way 'round.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Are you KIDDING ME!!??
Somalia and Afghanistan are the way they are because of GOVERNMENT.
The only other conclusion is that a series of military dictators and extremist religious groups are the definition of Capitalism.
People that are corrupt are corrupt. They need no help.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Something tells me you're biased against government.
Somalia and Afghanistan have no government.
They need governments so there will be someone to stand up to the warlords and the Taliban.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If "Warlords" and "The Taliban" aren't governments, what are they?
Corporations?
caltrop69 2 years ago
The difference between the two is that the public sector doesn't waste hundreds of millions of dollars every year bashing the private sector in every branch of the media.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
It's because the public sector can't steal enough money to afford it.
You, and your collectivist cronies, will have to work on that.
caltrop69 2 years ago
I am all in favor of eliminating waste from our federal budget. But first you have to FIND it.
Reagan looked. He couldn't find any.
After all of his campaign rhetoric about balancing the budget, Ronald Reagan did not propose one single budget that was balanced.
And the Republican Congress that America tossed out, as we all know, spent money like a drunken sailor.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Reagan just wanted to spend money on cool weapons. He wanted laser beams on sharks.
Milton Friedman, Reagan's chief economist, wanted Cap N' Trade. Something that, perversely almost, the Repugnatins are against today...Because the Demobrats want it.
You won't convince me by being partisan. I'll gladly help you beat up on the Repugnatins. Of course, I oppose both sides of this false debate, for different reasons, So I have no issue with beating up the Demobrats, either.
caltrop69 2 years ago
You're right. I don't assume, just because I say something, that the YouTuber I'm chatting with necessarily disagrees.
Democrats let people get away with anything. Republicans let corporations get away with anything. Libertarians let everybody get away with anything.
So stop letting corporations murder people. Become a Democrat.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Immoral acts will be committed by people of all sorts. The only issue here is as to whether the government is in on it, or not.
I'm not OK with the government helping people impinge on the rights of others.
Taking someone's Life, Liberty, or their ability to pursue happiness is immoral. Whether it's done by an individual, or done by a group of individuals, these rights are innate.
The demobrats are perfectly content to take property that doesn't belong to them.
caltrop69 2 years ago
What about when the actions of some private citizen are impinging on the rights of someone who lives next door?
What if a corporation kills someones child?
If we eliminate corporations we eliminate the crimes committed by corporations.
If we wipe out humanity, we eliminate the crimes being committed by people.
If we eliminate government we eliminate the crimes committed by government.
These are overly extreme solutions.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
This "so-called" choice between lawlessness and reasonably holding people accountable for their actions is a red herring.
It has nothing to do with corporations.
Individuals are responsible for harming others.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Why not just elect legislators who will write the laws so that all three groups (legislators, corporations, and individuals) cannot coercively violate the rights of citizens unless they have some damn good reason?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
You are asking those who get their pay via coercion to regulate those who don't....And you TRUST them to do it?
I hate to accuse you of being simple-minded...But are you REALLY this naive?
Why do you think a constitution was even WRITTEN, if you have this much trust in government? Do you think those who demanded the 10 amendments were just being polite?
We HAVE 10 amendments WRITTEN INTO our constitution BECAUSE government is untrustworthy.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Corporations are untrustworthy.
Your next-door neighbor is untrustworthy.
We need a balance of powers between all three.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Max Blumenthal's views, as presented; seem too overly simplistic of a stand. It's far too popular to criticize the so-called Right wing when much of the Dems and Left hold similar values and practice.
Demonizing your opponents is a weak form of discussion, or book writing for that matter. It's also very easy to do because you don't have to think past your own nose.
The real reason this is being presented this way? To sell books at somebody else's 'cost'.
drchiodo 2 years ago
On the video, there are gay homophobes and straight homophobes.
They BOTH should feel ashamed of themselves.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I'm going to take a moment out from our debate to agree with your sentiment, here.
OK...Back to the government.
caltrop69 2 years ago
The Repugnatins want to control what goes on in your pants.
The Demobrats want to control what goes on in your pocket.
Not sure I see much difference.
caltrop69 2 years ago
I think what the Democrats want in your pockets is higher wages.
If someone offered to double your salary and double your taxes, would you take the deal?
If yes, vote Democratic.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
no reliableinsider, democrats want to significantly improve the lives of working class americans, and yes, to tax all of the very wealthy that benefitted so dramatically under 8 years of bush and the g.o.p.
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
MrRockythesquirrel:
Let's benefit EVERYONE by getting rid of income taxes, entirely.
caltrop69 2 years ago
caltrop69,
If you get rid of income taxes, that takes the burden of paying off the Reagan-Bush-Bush National Debt off of the shoulders of the super-rich and shifts it to the shoulders of Middle Class Americans.
Why would you want to do that?
Middle Class Americans are being forced out of their homes ALREADY because our wages have been stagnant for eight years.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
How does getting rid of the income tax place MORE of a burden on an individual?
I know you probably hate rich people, so don't want them to benefit from something that would help everyone, but that's just bigotry.
Besides, statistics show that Rich People just leave the country if you try to target them.
caltrop69 2 years ago
ReliableInsider:
You have got to be kidding me.
The Demobrats punish accomplishment. Not even most of those in the party would shy away from admitting the "spread the wealth" mentality.
Not sure if you've ever studied history...But that mentality DOESN'T WORK. Eventually, those who are sick of supporting everyone else give up.
There are only so many suckers.
caltrop69 2 years ago
caltrop we do not punish accomplishment. we punish greed. we punish excess. especially if that excess came at the expense of screwing workers, the environment,or manipulating govt. for their selfishness and greed
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
Define "greed."
Is it the amount of money you make, or the fact that you want money?
Why don't you just give me all your money, MrRocky, so you aren't so greedy.
caltrop69 2 years ago
ever heard of sacrifice. ever heard of the greater good
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
That's all I'm asking. I'm asking that you sacrifice yourself.
Give away everything you own and live under a bridge.
It's the only fair thing to do.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Oh...And the Demobrats have NO ISSUE with increasing government power.
They're just too stupid to realize that the weapon they use against the other side is the same weapon (That they've provided with more power) that's used against them, once the tables are turned.
Repugnatins and Demobrats oughtta just have a duel, where they kill each other.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Why would the Democratic Party punish accomplishment?
If the choice is to burden Paris Hilton and the other super-rich with taxes or burden the Middle Class with taxes, the Democratic Party says that the Middle Class just can't AFFORD right now to pay higher taxes.
This is not complicated.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Again...It's not complicated that the rich just AVOID being taxed. They move away.
It ALWAYS falls on the middle class.
This isn't difficult to understand. Where does Jim Rogers live, these days?
caltrop69 2 years ago
That's easy to solve with an exit tax.
rg0057 2 years ago
Wow...When you collectivists smell blood, you're ruthless, aren't you?
Anyway. So far as I know, this was already passed by Bush. It was also passed by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
An exit tax is one of the death knells of a country. It's evidence that people WANT to leave the country enough that the government has to punish them for doing so.
caltrop69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why would the Democratic Party punish accomplishment?
If the choice is to burden Paris Hilton and the other super-rich with taxes or burden the Middle Class with taxes, the Democratic Party says that the Middle Class just can't AFFORD right now to pay higher taxes.
This is not complicated.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If you want no one to pay taxes, as I'm sure you claim, then the only way to do that is to build a strong economy and to stop pouring all our money into the hands of military contractors and down the rathole of infinite depth that is Iraq.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago 2
Finally, you've said something reasonable.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Thank you. :)
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
The reason that eliminating the income tax would place more of a burden on individuals is that we would have to significantly increase other taxes in order to stay revenue neutral.
If you eliminate a tax that hits the rich, you would have to increase taxes that hit the middle class.
Why cut taxes for the rich (people who are paid $1 million, $10 million, $100 million a year) and increase them for the middle class? That would hurt many, many more people than it would help.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
You just mentioned at least one method of decreasing our expenditures. We spend trillions on overseas empire. We could stop doing that.
I've read that, by one estimate, if we do away with the income tax entirely, we go back to our 1997 revenue, because of other revenue streams.
You can gra