Any capitalist worth his salt should support Obama, since his soon to fail policies will collapse the state quicker, and therefore open up the way to a free market. Vote Obama in 2008!
* I not only rejected the politics of left/right, above, but discussed the failure of adding one more dimension, as you claimed yours does, as well.
* Claiming an Austrian economic theory is a political ideology is a stretch. Beyond economics, it's merely a philosophy, much like libertarianism, which is morphing into a trendy new L-word for Leftists to hide under. (They change titles often.) Claiming it's a "practical implementation", when it has yet to be implemented, is fatuous.
"Coercion, by definition, is..." -- in fact it has several definitions, and in general coersion is merely the use of force to intimidate. Regardless, I was merely quoting your use so as to reference your point in making mine. This conversation is getting tedious.
My broader point is that your politics aren't well examined, and exist as but a fantasy; a philosophy. Whenever such bumps into reality it manifests as hard Left, as your first post evidences.
You didn't note the RADICAL discrepency in campaign donations by, e.g., tort lawywers and labor price-fixing cartels like the teachers' unions.
Of all things to focus on, of all the racketeering conducted at the federal level, there is but an endless drone against the military -- the most primary and legitimate activity of a federal government. You echoed it. Thus, I find your politics/complaints specious.
If you value any of the "rights" you claim then you better damn well be prepared to use "coersion" to maintain them; otherwise, be prepared to submit to barbarism.
Reality doesn't care whether we collapse it to one or two dimensions. The American ideal of liberty has neither wings nor parties nor political ideologies. It is but the residual between the authority we grant gov't, and our imagination and will.
Sadly, we are now all STEEPED in modern Liberal mythologies -- the polar opposite.
It isn't a myth that Leftists hold in contempt any and all who defend America and those who support its defense.
I debunked your myth and provided a source, so you're in no position to recite more of them. Though, the mere observation that you consider such donations as evidence of something nefarious, which you clearly do, evidences my earlier observations of your politics.
Your politics are unexamined and thus Liberal. There is no symmetry there.
What is OBSERVED to be equivalent is Liberalism and whatever fanciful term behind which you hide your devotion to it. I don't give a rats ass what you call yourself. You proffered a Liberal myth through the question of your first post, and I busted it.
The fact that you distract from the point with your inane complaints doesn't change that reality.
You talk like a Marxist. You use Marxist terminology. Your original post revealed that you believe the full wad of Marxist mythologies regarding defense contractors. You define your politics by half-baked notions like a Marxist, and include a Marxist friendly sect of Liberalism in the title like a Marxist.
You first complain that I noticed your politcal bent, and then immediately verify that my oberations were accurate. Hilarious.
Discussing the differences between Lefist sects, such as Marxist and a "Marxist Anarchist", is like discussing the differences between cat and dog poo.
You admit to aligning yourself with the most murderous ideology in the history of our species, and feign offense that I noticed. Priceless.
I love how nobody can over talk Ann Coulter , lmao!
The reason is simple (really). By fundimg Obama who is an economic loose cannon and seems to know very little about markets, the big guys can have leverage on him should he win. McCain will do what moderate Republicans do anyway and if he is elected (and most likely will be) there is no need ot have leverage he'll be who they want him to be without much financial obligation torquing on the bar. So they have the situation hedged as usuall.
Perhaps big corporate entities, the institutions that know the most about economics, feel that McCain knows so little that they simply don't want him in office.
However, I am not one to defend corporations for anything, but this does seem like a non-story. The right is scared right now, hence all the fragmented non-stories broadcast every day on FOX and the radio. Oh, and if you really wanted this vid to reflect the "fairness doctrine" you would have given equal time to both sides.
Please tell that to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. Why dont you study the media time given to Obama vs McCain. If you want to see if there is real "fairness" in the media look at the light Obama is cast in and the glowing reports about him, hell I think the only other man to walk on water died about 2000 years ago the way the media paints it.
McCain was funded by George Soros to win the primary, this is the equivalence to Halliburton funding Edwards to insure a Republican win.
I am not defending the 'fairness doctrine' - I was merely stating what its intentions claim (a 50/50 split on airtime).
As far as the media coverage, I believe FOX and MSNBC are obviously pandering to their respective sides, but the I find the other networks to be fair overall. FOX likes to pretend that every other network is part of a left wing conspiracy, but thats only because they are on the left of FOX. Both sides always lack any semblance of civics instead of engaging in real debate.
Super rich capitalists have always supported Communism and other Leftist dictatorships, because through the Left the rich can enslave the working class. The Left enslaves the workers, not frees them. The super rich want slaves.
Contributions by sector at 1:44--notice how the oil sector is left out? The oil sector that McCain's tax plan would give billion dollar tax cuts to, even though it would cause an escalating debt and they are making record profits? It would be interesting to see the figures of the military companies, too.
Support McCain if you like his policies, but don't believe this nonsense about Obama being any more in the pockets of power than he is.
I get that point, but I think its one we've all been discussing here for months--don't you remember all the "Obama is CFR" comments?
Obama's part of the ruling establishment, although he wasn't born into it like John McCain. If you remember the Kucinich, and Paul campaigns, you know what happens to someone who *isn't* a member of the club.
Any government that directly offended too much of the ruling class would be overthrown (see Smedley Butler and FDR).
90% of American Communists come from the upper classes. The Universities are full of spoiled rich kid Marxists. I met a lot of Communists in college as teachers and students. I have never met a Marxist oilfield worker, Marxist stone mason, a Marxist short order cook, etc. The rich support the Left, because they know they will take over the dictatorship of the proles and have power over the poor.
Hmmmm, the Republican attacking the Democrats as being rich. Attacking the profit motive. Attacking self-interest. Attacking man as his own spiritual sovereign.
Is it any wonder that the GOP has been impotent to defend against altruism, collectivism, and socialism for the last 100 years?
Go ahead, attack George Soros and Silicon Valley, but they're bit players. The real problem is that BOTH parties believe in these things. Christianity itself teaches these things!
These are all people who benefit from regulations and the like. I think Coulter is right in this case. She never attacked the profit motive or self-interest (though I will hasten to add that self-interest manifested in garnering political favours is abhorrent.)
I would contend that what these rich Dems are doing is not self-interest. They are exposing their huge fortunes to substantial risk by attacking capitalism politically. Especially considering that most of the money these people have is not really money at all, but stocks.
Also, I disagree. Fox and Coulter did attack the profit motive. Implicitly. The metamessage of the whole segment was "look, we Republicans are the true altruists."
Actually, quite the opposite. Government regulations protect their huge fortunes. Not only are quotes from government contracts at least 30 pages long, but frequently require the bidder to adhere to standards kept by "competing" companies. Private contracts are typically between 1-5 pages long, and can be altered by the requestor to new standards. Most government regulations are developed by the companies being regulated w/the most power. This is anti capitalism, ergo pro Democrat.
Government regulations aren't immune to the laws of economics. Sure, in the short term they're living it up, but once their dependence on superflous government contracts - and the parasitism they force on the masses - reaches a critical mass, you'd be surprised at how quickly all of that wealth on paper will disappear.
It is possible for someone to be killing himself without realizing it. Ask any chain smoker who "enjoys the taste."
I agree, which is why I think that big government is dangerous. Unfortunately, many people (including the super rich) care more about short term gains. Besides, where does all of that wealth on paper go? To the super rich. Think about all of those foreclosed homes. Someone still owns them (the banks). Its just that in a bad economy, distribution of wealth and assests (ergo homes) is broken. What good are a bunch of empty homes and homeless people? So the rich dam the flow of money.
Yes, but that's a rather superficial analysis. Even a bunch of empty homes were the rich's intention - which would be their inalienable property right - it would still be caused primarily by government policy. Sure, some of the rich support these policies, but not without the support of millions of middle class and poor fellow citizens.
What if these banks had refused these loans? Well, they would have been fined for discrimination.
In a Marxist government the upper class eggheads rule over the masses. Communism is super monpoly capitalism, of course, the upper class is pro-Left. The Left oppreses the workers and puts eggheads in power.
Miss Coulter has it wrong when she says the billionaires do not want to play God. The billionaires believe that they are God's Chosen People and that the rest of us are less than human.
Anne Coulter is windbag but in this case I think she's right... -cringe...
UShistoryX2 2 years ago
Voting for the Republicrats won't make a difference. Only the third parties can deliver real change but they get no news coverage
bluecode320 3 years ago
Any capitalist worth his salt should support Obama, since his soon to fail policies will collapse the state quicker, and therefore open up the way to a free market. Vote Obama in 2008!
subach 3 years ago
Got a good point!
BigTrainBuff 3 years ago
@subach, awesome comment, brother!
AlanCom1 3 years ago
Small virtual worlds.
subach 3 years ago
* I not only rejected the politics of left/right, above, but discussed the failure of adding one more dimension, as you claimed yours does, as well.
* Claiming an Austrian economic theory is a political ideology is a stretch. Beyond economics, it's merely a philosophy, much like libertarianism, which is morphing into a trendy new L-word for Leftists to hide under. (They change titles often.) Claiming it's a "practical implementation", when it has yet to be implemented, is fatuous.
TylerNull 3 years ago
"Coercion, by definition, is..." -- in fact it has several definitions, and in general coersion is merely the use of force to intimidate. Regardless, I was merely quoting your use so as to reference your point in making mine. This conversation is getting tedious.
My broader point is that your politics aren't well examined, and exist as but a fantasy; a philosophy. Whenever such bumps into reality it manifests as hard Left, as your first post evidences.
TylerNull 3 years ago
You didn't note the RADICAL discrepency in campaign donations by, e.g., tort lawywers and labor price-fixing cartels like the teachers' unions.
Of all things to focus on, of all the racketeering conducted at the federal level, there is but an endless drone against the military -- the most primary and legitimate activity of a federal government. You echoed it. Thus, I find your politics/complaints specious.
TylerNull 3 years ago
If you value any of the "rights" you claim then you better damn well be prepared to use "coersion" to maintain them; otherwise, be prepared to submit to barbarism.
Reality doesn't care whether we collapse it to one or two dimensions. The American ideal of liberty has neither wings nor parties nor political ideologies. It is but the residual between the authority we grant gov't, and our imagination and will.
Sadly, we are now all STEEPED in modern Liberal mythologies -- the polar opposite.
TylerNull 3 years ago
It isn't a myth that Leftists hold in contempt any and all who defend America and those who support its defense.
I debunked your myth and provided a source, so you're in no position to recite more of them. Though, the mere observation that you consider such donations as evidence of something nefarious, which you clearly do, evidences my earlier observations of your politics.
Your politics are unexamined and thus Liberal. There is no symmetry there.
TylerNull 3 years ago
What is OBSERVED to be equivalent is Liberalism and whatever fanciful term behind which you hide your devotion to it. I don't give a rats ass what you call yourself. You proffered a Liberal myth through the question of your first post, and I busted it.
The fact that you distract from the point with your inane complaints doesn't change that reality.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Tomato, TomAHto ...
You talk like a Marxist. You use Marxist terminology. Your original post revealed that you believe the full wad of Marxist mythologies regarding defense contractors. You define your politics by half-baked notions like a Marxist, and include a Marxist friendly sect of Liberalism in the title like a Marxist.
Thus, my earlier post applies.
TylerNull 3 years ago
You first complain that I noticed your politcal bent, and then immediately verify that my oberations were accurate. Hilarious.
Discussing the differences between Lefist sects, such as Marxist and a "Marxist Anarchist", is like discussing the differences between cat and dog poo.
You admit to aligning yourself with the most murderous ideology in the history of our species, and feign offense that I noticed. Priceless.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Nor any other industry, but for that relevant to the show -- Wall Street.
And they're called "defense contractors", you marxist. But don't stress yourself, one day you'll grow up and learn how to google.
"Candidates close in defense donations"
-- politico . com
Both recieved about $300,000.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Love the Ann Coulter stuff, keep it coming man
zeecee1 3 years ago
Tyler Null, you did a great job of editing. I was able to enjoy a moment of peace. Ahhh! It was nice. : )
opchidexio 3 years ago
I love how nobody can over talk Ann Coulter , lmao!
The reason is simple (really). By fundimg Obama who is an economic loose cannon and seems to know very little about markets, the big guys can have leverage on him should he win. McCain will do what moderate Republicans do anyway and if he is elected (and most likely will be) there is no need ot have leverage he'll be who they want him to be without much financial obligation torquing on the bar. So they have the situation hedged as usuall.
FarFromEquilibrium 3 years ago
Perhaps big corporate entities, the institutions that know the most about economics, feel that McCain knows so little that they simply don't want him in office.
However, I am not one to defend corporations for anything, but this does seem like a non-story. The right is scared right now, hence all the fragmented non-stories broadcast every day on FOX and the radio. Oh, and if you really wanted this vid to reflect the "fairness doctrine" you would have given equal time to both sides.
ODDMANtheone 3 years ago
"fairness doctrine" ?
Please tell that to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. Why dont you study the media time given to Obama vs McCain. If you want to see if there is real "fairness" in the media look at the light Obama is cast in and the glowing reports about him, hell I think the only other man to walk on water died about 2000 years ago the way the media paints it.
McCain was funded by George Soros to win the primary, this is the equivalence to Halliburton funding Edwards to insure a Republican win.
sunnsu 3 years ago
I am not defending the 'fairness doctrine' - I was merely stating what its intentions claim (a 50/50 split on airtime).
As far as the media coverage, I believe FOX and MSNBC are obviously pandering to their respective sides, but the I find the other networks to be fair overall. FOX likes to pretend that every other network is part of a left wing conspiracy, but thats only because they are on the left of FOX. Both sides always lack any semblance of civics instead of engaging in real debate.
ODDMANtheone 3 years ago
Super rich capitalists have always supported Communism and other Leftist dictatorships, because through the Left the rich can enslave the working class. The Left enslaves the workers, not frees them. The super rich want slaves.
WyattKaldenberg 3 years ago 2
Agreed.
Moragauth 3 years ago
This is non-news, and distorted to boot.
Contributions by sector at 1:44--notice how the oil sector is left out? The oil sector that McCain's tax plan would give billion dollar tax cuts to, even though it would cause an escalating debt and they are making record profits? It would be interesting to see the figures of the military companies, too.
Support McCain if you like his policies, but don't believe this nonsense about Obama being any more in the pockets of power than he is.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
Who cares? They both suck. The point is to show that democrats are by no means an unattractive option to the wealthy.
Moragauth 3 years ago
I get that point, but I think its one we've all been discussing here for months--don't you remember all the "Obama is CFR" comments?
Obama's part of the ruling establishment, although he wasn't born into it like John McCain. If you remember the Kucinich, and Paul campaigns, you know what happens to someone who *isn't* a member of the club.
Any government that directly offended too much of the ruling class would be overthrown (see Smedley Butler and FDR).
givebirthathome 3 years ago
corporations are addicted to the regulations protecting their businesses and industries.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
90% of American Communists come from the upper classes. The Universities are full of spoiled rich kid Marxists. I met a lot of Communists in college as teachers and students. I have never met a Marxist oilfield worker, Marxist stone mason, a Marxist short order cook, etc. The rich support the Left, because they know they will take over the dictatorship of the proles and have power over the poor.
WyattKaldenberg 3 years ago
Hmmmm, the Republican attacking the Democrats as being rich. Attacking the profit motive. Attacking self-interest. Attacking man as his own spiritual sovereign.
Is it any wonder that the GOP has been impotent to defend against altruism, collectivism, and socialism for the last 100 years?
Go ahead, attack George Soros and Silicon Valley, but they're bit players. The real problem is that BOTH parties believe in these things. Christianity itself teaches these things!
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
These are all people who benefit from regulations and the like. I think Coulter is right in this case. She never attacked the profit motive or self-interest (though I will hasten to add that self-interest manifested in garnering political favours is abhorrent.)
Moragauth 3 years ago
I would contend that what these rich Dems are doing is not self-interest. They are exposing their huge fortunes to substantial risk by attacking capitalism politically. Especially considering that most of the money these people have is not really money at all, but stocks.
Also, I disagree. Fox and Coulter did attack the profit motive. Implicitly. The metamessage of the whole segment was "look, we Republicans are the true altruists."
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Actually, quite the opposite. Government regulations protect their huge fortunes. Not only are quotes from government contracts at least 30 pages long, but frequently require the bidder to adhere to standards kept by "competing" companies. Private contracts are typically between 1-5 pages long, and can be altered by the requestor to new standards. Most government regulations are developed by the companies being regulated w/the most power. This is anti capitalism, ergo pro Democrat.
TracyII77 3 years ago
Government regulations aren't immune to the laws of economics. Sure, in the short term they're living it up, but once their dependence on superflous government contracts - and the parasitism they force on the masses - reaches a critical mass, you'd be surprised at how quickly all of that wealth on paper will disappear.
It is possible for someone to be killing himself without realizing it. Ask any chain smoker who "enjoys the taste."
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
I agree, which is why I think that big government is dangerous. Unfortunately, many people (including the super rich) care more about short term gains. Besides, where does all of that wealth on paper go? To the super rich. Think about all of those foreclosed homes. Someone still owns them (the banks). Its just that in a bad economy, distribution of wealth and assests (ergo homes) is broken. What good are a bunch of empty homes and homeless people? So the rich dam the flow of money.
TracyII77 3 years ago
Yes, but that's a rather superficial analysis. Even a bunch of empty homes were the rich's intention - which would be their inalienable property right - it would still be caused primarily by government policy. Sure, some of the rich support these policies, but not without the support of millions of middle class and poor fellow citizens.
What if these banks had refused these loans? Well, they would have been fined for discrimination.
Also, wealth on paper is not wealth.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Why should this be surprising? These people all benefit from interventionist governments, even if it costs them somewhat.
Moragauth 3 years ago
In a Marxist government the upper class eggheads rule over the masses. Communism is super monpoly capitalism, of course, the upper class is pro-Left. The Left oppreses the workers and puts eggheads in power.
WyattKaldenberg 3 years ago
Miss Coulter has it wrong when she says the billionaires do not want to play God. The billionaires believe that they are God's Chosen People and that the rest of us are less than human.
notAbba 3 years ago
Thanks for uploading this!
I was gonna watch this tonight, but missed the first part and only caught the second part after the commercial break.
THEDAILYSAVAGE 3 years ago 2