The new liberals - they are real socialists, they are still sometimes refer to themselves as people with progressive views. The classical liberal ideas are now being forced to called libertarianism. Greetings from Russia, where it (socialism) Hell was almost 100 years, do not repeat mistakes. P.S. sorry for bad english
I'm a hardcore liberal and this song is on my iPod! Sometimes we all need to chill out and poke fun at ourselves... conservatives, that includes you too. ;)
@hatewog Also since there is a comment about hijacking words, the term libertarianism has been hijacked by right wing social darwinists. They really fucked the term up.
god i hate you faggots. seriously. its a motherfucking song. you cons and libs are both assholes. neither party cares about YOU or YOUR goals. if you think any differently, then read a book. if you dont care and are willing to live in militant ignorance, happy with your red versus blue propaganda, then you can fuck off. our country doesnt need a left wing or a right wing. what we need is a FUCKING SPINE.
"Quit hitting me up about how I am using a left wing song for right wing purposes." Hmmm.... first, it's not a left wing song, it's an outsiders song. Second, despite your comment, it is what it is.....you are, after all, only singling out Democrats. I think you need to get your head out of Fox "News' " ass. You may hate the Refusicans, but you are most definitely a con.
Jello is referring to Bill Clinton here, not Hillary. This is the version of the Phil Ochs (he of blessed memory!) tune he updated in the 90's. He's since done an update that does indeed snark "I cheeered when Obama was chosen, my faith in the system restored."'
Although for the record, like many of his 60's left wing colleagues, dear Phil was a total sexist. I'd like to think he'd be all straightened out now he was alive and well.
@surkhalam Africans continue to engage in slavery today. Back then, they actively rounded up their neighbors and sold them into slavery to whomever was buying. It's an African practice that was legalized in the British colony of Jamestown by a black African man who wanted black slaves rather than indentured servants.
Americans fought to end the practice after they separated from Britain. But, in Africa, it still goes strong.
And here you are, honest to goodness, trying to justify centuries of slavery by mostly white European men and governments with the excuse that some Africans still engage in it. Brilliant. And where do you think they caught that from, you idiot? Out of thin air? No. African slavery is a consequence of years and years of ambitious, merciless, imperialistic rulers, who took the Moors (Africans) for their labourers, which the Africans in turn used for their own means.
Or what about the South African apartheid, stipulated by a decades long government of purely white men, where the black population where kept in districts, encased and locked away from the rest of the country?
@surkhalam "but slavery was as american as apple pie and Property"
Absolutely wrong. It was an African practice, brought to the British Colonies, that was despised by the founders who penned American ideology. Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to condemn the practice and seek abolition in his original version of the Declaration of Independence. It was another half century before the Americans were able to wage that fight, though Democrats fought hard to preserve slavery.
@TheRacistsMustDie I honestly haven't heard much of his music. I'll look into it. Might be fun!
I'll go over to the other discussion and reply - I reckon it's likely you have posted there. I've been in Hawaii lately, very busy on a project, sorry for the long absence.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Well you don't have to react if you don't want to. & I'll warn you Jello has been a presidential candidate for the GPUS, staunchly anti-conservative & a non-anarcho-capitalist anarchist. Besides somehow I somehow just don't think you're going to like punk, or Phil Ochs's kind of folk. But you're free too look of course, & don't forget his spoken word!
@surkhalam The Republican Party, as I said, dragged the Democrats kicking and screaming into recognizing black people as human beings. That started around the time of Abraham Lincoln. Remember History 101?
Those southern Democrats fought back, of course, hoping to keep their "property rights" intact.
They were forced to accept that "all men are created equal" by the Republicans.
@surkhalam Seriously, your history teacher was remiss. Jamestown became prosperous once private property rights and capitalism were put into place. That's where the first Thanksgiving originated...
Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America
cato. org/pub_display. php?pub_id=8236
Collectivism created starvation in Jamestown. Switch to Capitalism saved the colony, producing prosperity.
@surkhalam "why didn't they mention it by name then?"
Weren't you told?
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
They knew about it going back at least as far as the Jamestown Colony, which nearly starved to death because of Socialism.
@surkhalam You're talking about the work to incorporate black people into representation in government. Those southern Democrats had to be forced to recognize black people as human beings at all. As long as they would not allow black people to vote, they could not claim the black population for full representation in the House of Representatives.
The Republicans had to drag them, kicking and screaming, into obedience to the founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
Jello's version is great, but DickScary is apparently vagina scary. Radical male comrades, why do you turn out to be less radical and more "liberal" when it comes to women? Almost all of the liberals criticized by this video are women. How can you not go after Hilary but not Obama?
@Annarianexile Uh...because, if you look at the date on the video, Obama wasn't really a name yet, and Hillary was the expected nominee. It is true that I am not a fan of Hillary, but that has nothing to do with her sex, so nice try on that. Actually, after re-watching the video just now, I seem to have more males than females portrayed. Quit looking for sexism where it doesn't exist.
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
@Annarianexile I just wanted to post to say that I agree with your comment (lest you think that you are without allies among radical men :) ).
I think there's a trope of the "dumb liberal woman" that is easy to reference and criticize and that the very existence of this stereotype is obviously a product of our sexist culture. I didn't watch too much of the video (I just wanted to hear the song), but it seemed like that was what it was often doing and DS oughtta think about this some.
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)...........
this video is incredibly relevant in light of the osama murder. gotta love all the "bleeding heart" liberals that voted for nobel peace prize winner obama relishing in the blood sacrifice made to the blood gods. YEAEEAH WE GOT EM OBAMAAAA FUCK THEM TERRISTS but bush was a meanie!!!!!
Lol. Bush started the two wars, genius. He also enacted the patriot act, enacted the surveillance act, opened Guantamo Bay, covered up waterboarding. Among other seriously fucked up shit. The first thing Obama did in office was sign a stimulus bill in hopes of stabilizing the economy. He's then gone on to attempt getting universal healthcare passed in the US, with opposition from the Repubs. He didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but so what? He's done more for peace than Bush.
Barack Obama did not cause the conflict in Libya. Barack Obama did not bomb the country for no reason. Barack Obama did not *bomb* the country, only for a free-fire zone to prevent planes from leaving the ground. Barack Obama is not waging a war against Libya. Barack Obama is not in charge of the war. NATO is and the UN is. Should I go on? Again, he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. But he's done more for peace than Bush. Way more.
@Pitchguest We are NATO members, so yes we are waging war if NATO is. So he obtained the free-fire zone by bombing it? Whatever, but he ought to at least obey the law and get Congressional approval, like President Bush did.
Bush did not get permission from Congress to invade Iraq. Your grasp of history is already slipping. However once again, Barack Obama is not in charge of this "war" (intervention). NATO is. The US is only a member country of NATO, but isn't in "charge" of NATO. The one leading the charge into Libya is the leader of the UN, Nikolas Sarkozy. *Not* Barack Obama.
The free-fire zone was deemed essential to prevent Gaddafi or his staff from leaving the country. Also in case of fighter jets.
This was made in accordance to the United Nation Security Council Resolution act from 1973. I don't agree with the bombing, and I don't agree with them sending drones. I don't agree with how they've reported feeling almost complicit aiding the rebel forces, or how they didn't send their troops on the ground sooner to help out. But I also don't agree to a dictator thinking he can kill his own people and no one will notice or care.
@Pitchguest Frankly I don't care what the UN says, BO has a legal obligation to go through Congress. Which President Bush did in October of 2002. BTW, Nikolas Sarkozy is not the head of the United Nations.
Well no matter what you think or don't think about the UN or what the UN says, that's what got NATO into Libya. And no matter what you think about Bush, he lied through his teeth to Congress about the WMD's in Iraq. That is not really getting approval from Congress. That's lying. Not to mention his mission was to capture, apprehend or otherwise incapacitate bin Laden, which by his own admission did not care or think about.
@Pitchguest "no matter what you think about Bush, he lied through his teeth to Congress about the WMD's in Iraq"
No, he didn't. We've found over 500 of those chemical munitions that the UN searched for years and could not find. Also, we've recovered the nuclear weapons starter kit that was provided to Iraq by the Pakistani scientist, Khan. Same kits were provided to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Iran and NK put theirs to good use.
@Pitchguest What's more, when Bill Clinton committed the US to military destruction of Saddam's regime with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - it wasn't just because he was thwarting the disarmament mandates. It was because his behavior showed other rogue nations, like North Korea and Iran, that they could get away with it through sheer stubbornness. Clinton was correct - that could not be allowed to continue. He resumed full hostilities with the bombing of Iraq in Dec, 1998.
Furthermore NATO is not restricted according to the United States Congress. And I think it's immoral that the United States Congress can lay down judgment on a country simply because the United States Congress says so. The United States Congress also needs to adhere to the Geneva Convention, which they didn't do in 2001 when they "posthumously" approved the Iraq war. But that's for another time.
And it's not a war, it's an intervention. NATO is not waging war against Libya.
Yes, pardon me. 2002. And I meant to say Ban-ki Moon, not Nikolas Sarkozy. Not sure what got into me. Anyway.
No, Libya is not a war! It's not a war! There's a *civil war* going on in Libya, but that is neither here nor there. The civil war is between the government of Libya and the people of Libya. What NATO is waging is not a war, but an intervention, to prevent a potential genocide a la Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot. They're stymying the conflict, not creating it. There's the difference.
@Pitchguest How many Libyans are being murdered by NATO to help the Muslim Brotherhood get control of yet another nation?
The rebels started the conflict and obligated the Libyan military to defend its nation against internal insurgency. That does not obligate us to murder Libyans to help the insurgents achieve their goals. Not by a long shot.
@Pitchguest "NATO is not waging war against Libya"
Sending in military force to murder uncounted thousands of Libyans to overthrow its government and help a new power take over the country... that's waging war.
If those bombs were falling on your home town to help the Muslim Brotherhood seize power, you might understand.
@Pitchguest "Barack Obama is not waging a war against Libya. Barack Obama is not in charge of the war. NATO is and the UN is."
That's about the most alarming thing you have said. The US military is under UN command to overthrow a foreign nation that was merely trying to defend itself against takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood... wow!
The USA is in serious trouble if foreign powers can command its military.
Legally, Obama is our CinC. Has he given up that authority to foreign powers?
What the fuck are you talking, defending itself against a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood? The people of Libya wanted a revolution and wished for a new government and the current leader of Libya, Gaddafi, went fucking nuts, fired most of his staff, kept his most loyal in the government and the military and said fuck you to everyone else. He would kill everyone who opposed him; any man, woman or child, any civilian, he'd murder to help him remain in power.
@Pitchguest The Muslim Brotherhood, an extremely aggressive sect with the destruction of Israel and the USA as goals, has seized great power in Egypt and is working to get Libya as well. They've been trying for decades to get rid of Ghadaffi - he's too 'soft' for the Jihadis.
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize
The US is not overthrowing ANYONE! Aren't you listening? It's not a fucking WAR! It's an intervention! The only thing the US, Barack Obama, has done is help make a free-fire zone. Nothing else! He has no troops on the ground, he has no power over the troops from NATO on the ground, he has no power over the rebel insurgents on the ground. Nothing! How on EARTH do you equate this to "overthrow[ing] a foreign nation"? HOW?
@Pitchguest Libya did not start a war with any foreign nation. The Libyan government has fought for decades to prevent Jihadis from seizing control. The Jihadis have been trying for decades to overthrow the Libyan government and seize control.
This time, Obama is using US military force to attack and overthrow a nation, killing uncounted numbers of Libyans, to help the Muslim Brotherhood seize power just as Obama's buddies helped them in Egypt.
You absolute imbecile. The decision for NATO to oppose the Libyan government didn't materialize out of thin air. It came from somewhere. It came when Gaddafi said he would show no mercy for anyone who would oppose him, which includes civilians - and he drew first blood. Many of the rebel insurgents in Libya *were not* rebel insurgents to begin with, but peaceful protesters with placards - who got shot at by Gaddafi and his military goons!
@Pitchguest Guess what? The US Constitution mandates use of force against any internal insurgencies trying to overthrow the US government, including Communist groups comprised of "civilians".
Ghadaffi is exercising the same national defense as any sensible nation would. Anyone trying to overthrow the nation gets shot. The same applies in the USA.
The same applied in Kosovo, when the Serbs tried to stop the Islamist takeover. Clinton/NATO helped them conquer yet another chunk of territory.
...They weren't trying to 'overthrow the government,' you human paraquat, they were standing outside with placards peacefully protesting for a change in government! You've also grossly misunderstood the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the right to bear arms, where it's the CIVILIANS' right to form a MILITIA if the GOVERNMENT should ever try to DOMINATE its people. In other words, the REBELS are in the right! IN OTHER WORDS, fuck YOU, you inbred ingrate cunt.
Of course, you won't recognise this fact - which has been documented many, many times - because you're a complacent, ignorant conservative Republican idiot. You then bring up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and speak as if they're related to Egypt (much like another idiot I spoke to about Libya who says Al-Qaeda is behind everything) and then you have the NERVE to imply the US had anything to do with the Egyptian revolution. My god, you're a *moron.* Stop talking.
@Pitchguest Are you COMPLETELY unaware that American Communists, close buddies of Obama, were in fact working hard to organize the Egyptian revolt? YOU IGNORAMUS.
Go look up William Ayers (the guy who launched Obama's political career) and Bernardine Dohrn. See what they organized in Egypt as well as organizing the flotilla to try to run the Israeli blockade. They're still at it. Code Pink as well.
Ahahaha, just conspiracy theory upon conspiracy theory with you. YES, I'm completely unaware of it, BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT! Do you have any evidence of ANY of your assertions, ANY AT ALL? And I mean real, CONCRETE evidence, and not obscure bloggers or Alex Jones or STORMFRONT or whatever 'source' you THINK is reliable.
What Bill Ayers organizes has *nothing* to do with Barack Obama! Nada! Zip! Your 'theories' are absurd and you're grasping at straws.
@retchen Do you really think the Communist Party USA would back a "Free Private Enterprise" kind of guy? No.
He's using his power to play favorites in the corporate world all right, favoring those who serve the Democrat/Communist Party at the expense of others. That's standard operating procedure for Communists/Fascists.
@retchen I wish. The man is a stone cold communist. Was it Lenin who said he would buy ropes from capitalists so as to hang them with the very same ropes? Loosely quoted. Think of him in that light. He is going to usher in World Wide Communism (read... Hell on Earth) via the U.N with China leading the way. You enviro nuts' heads are going to explode when that happens. That will be my only solice.
@retchen I wish. The man is a stone cold communist. Was it Lenin who said he would buy ropes from capitalists so as to hang them with the very same ropes? Loosely quoted. Think of him in that light. He is going to usher in World Wide Communism (read... Hell on Earth) via the U.N with China leading the way. You enviro nuts' heads are going to explode when that happens. That will be my only solice.
And finally, the UN has ZERO power over the US. NATO has ZERO power over the US. The US has given up ZERO authority to "foreign powers." Any act in this conflict, in this intervention, by the US has been done by their own hand. NATO *asked* the US for help in constituting a no-fly zone* and they agreed. Nothing more and nothing less.
*a little correction on my previous posts. They did not make a "free-fire zone," but a "no-fly zone." Sorry for any confusion.
@Pitchguest Obama insists he is not directing this war to overthrow a foreign nation, that it is a NATO operation and that NATO is in control.
That is Obama relinquishing his job as CinC to a foreign power. He makes this claim to protect himself against justified condemnation as the "great imperialist" attacking other nations without the justification of US National Defense.
The CPUSA is helping in this game, blaming NATO rather than Obama for "imperialism".
Oh for... he's NOT relinquishing his position as CinC to NATO! How could he? It's not an American operation! If it *was* an American operation in the *first place* and then Obama let NATO take over in place OF America, commanding AMERICAN troops, etc, THEN we're talking "relinquishing." Obama is NOT a "key" player in Libya and he never WAS. He helped with the no-fly zone, that's it. Moreover, SWEDEN helped with the no-fly zone. Is SWEDEN occupying Libya? I don't think so.
@Pitchguest Don't you see - that's the problem. It's not just a no-fly zone. You're dead wrong. They are actively killing Libyan people on the ground to help another group seize control of Libya. They're also killing Libyans in hopes of catching Gadhaffi with one of the bombs.
What is the plan to establish control of Libya, per the Geneva Conventions, to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadis do NOT seize control in the power vacuum?
@Pitchguest In fact, the Obama plan is to help the Muslim Brotherhood, which is devoted to destruction of Israel and the USA, seize control of Libya just as Obama applauded their power grab in Egypt.
They are among the people fighting to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
AS1: If someone works for a tax-exempt foundation, do they report their income and pay taxes on it?
DUH! Is the secretary taxed? That's your question?
The organization may be exempt .
Not that, it's a special Corporate TAX SHELTER.
Tax exempt is not mooching - it is merely not having one's money taken.
IT IS MOOCHING when SOME have special privilege, but others pay. It's like Affirmative Action that wingnuts hate, but for wealthy & powerful, not poor underclass, so rightists approve of that.
@Sheillala2008 At lib meetings, the handouts are often Communist literature. The literature often has stated goals on it including "destruction of the American system". And, they wear shirts portraying Ernesto Guevara, the Stalinist thug who wanted to nuke New York.
At conservative meetings, the handouts are often the Founding documents of this nation and their ideology is adherence to American principles. They are shocked at libs voting for our nation's enemies.
@dilbertgeg "The irony is that American corporatism has been developed into something resembling Stalinism."
I completely agree - but it is the Government that has become Stalinist. The corporations now have to endure those conditions and try to survive - or buy favor - under the system illegally created by government ignoring the limitations on their power spelled out in the US Constitution.
Our Founders were well aware of Socialism and tried to protect us against it.
@dilbertgeg "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
Is it really worth arguing with somebody who subscribes to BanGayMarriage? He's obviously not going to listen to you or doesn't even sincerely believe the things he types. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Stop.
@SpazzyLoLazzy Sorry, but you are not thinking clearly. Let me ask - do I want to ban gay marriage? If you believe you know my mind and what I believe, you should be able to answer that question truthfully.
Go ahead, tell everyone here what I believe.
Then I'll laugh my ass off at you - because you have no way of knowing aside from asking me.
you must be a wall street banker, complex finances, i'll say cdo's, sub prime mortgages, silver shorts, gold manipulation then when it all blows up guess who pays them off. socialism for the rich. wake up and smell the coffee. even buffett called their complex finances financial weapons of mass destruction. wall street creates nothing but takes everything. but thanks for the reply mr. gordon gecko we are doomed
geez marx was a moocher who just wanted to get his hands on other peoples money and did not want to work for a living? sounds like a wall street banker to me. btw was that groucho , harpo , chico or zeppo?
@1dmartig Wall street bankers have worked hard, educated themselves and acquired the skillsets to manage complex finances. Karl Marx was simply devoted to revolution to overthrow the existing system so he and his bullies could seize control of everyone else's stuff.
Marx was most unlike a wall street banker. The very notion of going to work every day is what he hated most - that's why he cooked up the "I Take Your Stuff" scheme.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 "manage complex finances" = steal money from everyone else. You don't understand how Wall Street works. You don't understand how the Fed system works, obviously. You don't understand that financial capitalism is a producer of nothing at all, it's at best a way to organize capital and leech profits, now it's a way to destroy productive capital and loot pensions and tangible equity. Hence, capitalism has been destroyed by capitalists.
I hope you understand that while many people like @dilbertgeg see the rosy side of capitalism, that was not Phil Och's or Jello Biafra's view. The historical problems with unregulated century capitalism included windows and orphans starving in the streets, workers kept in grossly unsafe conditions for 14 hour workdays, and an uncaring and unfeeling upper class ruling over it all. The point of liberalism is freedom and compassion, and balance between the left and right.
If every American was taxed 100% of their income, it would not resolve America's debt and budget crisis.
150 years ago the London Times proclaimed that if America was debt-free, it would attract the best and brightest people from all the world and would destroy the Monarchies - therefore the American system of government must be destroyed.
The Left are achieving that goal, with nice-sounding programs really intended to bankrupt the nation, just as they told us they would for decades.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 They could TAX ZERO INCOME but 100% of unethical UNEARNED gains from fin speculation and gains on (a) nature (b) legal privilege (c) regulatory advantage.
Govt would be debt free AND could increase spending on social problems and infrastructure.
AND it would create more jobs instead of taxpayers subsidy to send jobs offshore.
This is a deliberate attack.
Nice-sounding programs like "the Rich should keep all they worked for", but they added ZERO "WORK" just leverage.
@dilbertgeg How about we tax foreign imports, like they do to us? Many countries have a 100% tax on US imports, ensuring job creation for their own people. That could solve our budget problems and restore American manufacturing really quickly.
Investors earn a return on the money they've put into helping others build a company, become productive, have jobs. The employees ALSO will earn vested stock in a well-run company. I see no justification to seize their gains.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Taxation at 100% of earned income would NOT resolve America's debt crisis for a couple reasons.
1. The truly wealthy elite avoid taxable income. They have gains, and much of that the govt they "own" permits them to hide offshore or deduct via shell companies, offshore banking scam.
2. Taxation was meant to be on UNEARNED income, not the sweat of brow of one laboring for food, clothing, and shelter. It was meant to tax elite privilege. The elite love their free lunch.
@dilbertgeg When Thomas Jefferson became President, he eliminated all personal taxation. That was the intent.
Taxation on imports would be the tax on luxury, since all basic necessities were produced domestically.
Now we have leftists in government, conditioned to HATE private enterprise, taxing domestic production to death while encouraging foreign import. The whole foundational system has been turned upside down with catastrophic results.
I do not understand why most of the Jello Biafra songs I've heard have his voice so hard to hear/understand. It may be that hearing his words clearly is not really that important. Maybe it's a clever ploy to get folks to look further, do some homework, etc. As as musician, if pisses me off that both tune and words are not well mixed. I'm thinking Jello has a mainly deaf friend of decades who does his mixing or something. Oh well.
True Liberals are like the Founders of this nation - they believe in freedom from government control. Today, we call them "conservatives".
Today's Leftists, calling themselves "liberals", are cooking up any excuse they can think of to seize and redistribute your wealth (to their supporters) and take away your clearly spelled-out Rights.
@Verminshow I know plenty of Americans who believe firmly in individual liberty and freedom from oppression and respect for the rights (including property rights) of others. They tend to appear at TEA Party gatherings and can be found in many other patriot groups nationwide.
So, the thieving mindset is not a sole-american value, it is a distinction between American values and the Left. The Leftist motto is "I TAKE YOUR STUFF!", the American motto is "STOP TAKING MY STUFF".
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Your perception is well understood, tho I don't think it is as generally embraced as you insist. While the majority mindset does seem to speak out for individual rights and "respect" for others and all the rest of it, stangnant lifestyles based on the proposed promotion and sustenence of such does not seem to be possible to hold a constant in such a society basing itself on such claims.
@Verminshow Yet do to it's economic laundering, where the motto is "everything for sale", it just seems to damn all attempted efforts at such a "cooperative" or "coexistential" aim.
STOP TAKING ALL OUR STUFF and STOP GIVING IT TO THE SUPER-RICH ON GOVT HANDOUTS and TO MULTI-NATIONAL CAPITALISTS WHO DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT AMERICA ANYHOW.
oh, that isn't what you meant? you want to keep giving away wealth to the Super Rich? Sorry about the shouting, maybe I got your attention. Even the freaking CATO INSTITUTE started by David Koch of Tea Party has lots of articles on corporate welfare, even calling Republicans worse than Democrats.
@dilbertgeg "STOP TAKING ALL OUR STUFF and STOP GIVING IT TO THE SUPER-RICH ON GOVT HANDOUTS"
Agreed. Get Obama out NOW before he hands more Billions to his crooked buddies!!
Rahm Emanuel was on the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, lying about earnings to pocket tens of millions in bonuses, ran the company into the ground. That schmuck should be behind bars! Obama shoveled our cash into his pockets and gave him a cush Government job.
Crawdaddy, I do agree with you that much of what they appear to be doing is the self-serving, placating stuff. But what are they doing behind the scenes? Pillaging the US treasury and driving the US into unrecoverable debt. Establishing Fascist government control over US industry, banking, the media. Forcibly blocking US energy production to make the US dependent upon hostile nations for its very survival.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Okay, there, buddy. Yep, Soros, the guy who keeps sponsoring revolutions against the Communist Party, is a socialist, and so is the neoliberal Obama, and Gorbachev, who gave the go-ahead to the policies that fell the Soviet Union and is now basically a liberal capitalist, and Al Gore, who sat as vice president on one of the most deregulatory administrations in the history of this nation. Yep, they're socialists. SOCIALISTS, I SAY!
Crawdaddy - Lenin identified the weaksauce liberals as the "useful idiots". They're not the socialist masterminds, by any stretch, and are generally not the sharpest rocks in the creekbed either. But the SOCIALISTS, like Mikhail Gorbachev, George Soros, Al Gore, Barack Obama... are using them as cattle in the way socialists always have.
Great destruction can be accomplished by stampeding a large herd.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 calling Gorbachev, Soros, Gore, Barack, 2 Clintons "SOCIALISTS" is to torture language, to make it fit a preconceived notion of Dems circa 33. That's neoliberal hyper-capitalism and imperialism, a "soft" version of the Cold War and Empire, that's all. "Corporate Socialism" is not a genuine term, it's meant as an oxymoron, the attributes of Socialism, sharing the wealth, but by seizing wealth from Laborers, redistributing it to Wealthy Elites, the antithesis of Socialism.
@dilbertgeg I almost agree with what you're saying. However, whenever government is given the power to seize assets, at will, then redistribute to whomever "deserves" it, human nature invariably turns that very nice vision of Socialism into the horror we see in so many countries. It is inevitable that the most corrupt people, folks like Karl Marx himself, will seek the power to take other people's stuff to do what they wish with it all.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 {whenever government is given the power to seize assets, at will, then redistribute to whomever "deserves" it}
Capitalism in the US has *ALWAYS* seized assets from WORKERS and given them to the LAZY IDLE RICH who "own" this country.
Albert Jay Nock explained in Liberty vs. the Constitution, but as we got more advanced, the wealthy elite have demanded more and more government handouts for their corporations, protection, R & D, foreign aid, military spending, etc. Lazy scum.
@dilbertgeg "the wealthy elite have demanded more and more government handouts for their corporations"
Do you see? You just agreed with me. GOVERNMENT seizing assets then redistributing them to whomever they decide "deserve" it. Like Barack Obama shoveling billions of our dollars into corporations run by his crooked buddies Rahm Emanuel and Franklin Raines, claiming, "they are too big to fail".
Obama decided they deserved it and did the Socialist thing, handed them OUR cash.
@dilbertgeg Meanwhile, look at Bill Gates. Whose money does he steal? I worked for the guy. We got vested stock in the company, so we profited by the excess income generated by our labor. Gates got very rich and used his money to help others, wiring the entire nation and every school for internet access, over a billion dollars to fight AIDS and so on. Lazy Idle Rich? No.
Again, the real problem arises when government assumes the power to seize money from some and hand it to their buddies.
2) how was Internet created? WHO paid for that? (We the Ppl paid. Why are we paying for it again?)
3) how much of Gates profits came from Govt contracts?
4) Did Gates daddy's fortune come from Fed gov business? Yes.
5) Read libertarians' conflicting views of Intellectual Property patents. It's govt intervention to halt competition, increase prices. Increases innovation? No, usually blocks innovation.
@dilbertgeg Gates made his money from Windows. It solved the problem we all complained about - that different programs needed their own video and printer drivers and could not work together.
Gates personally paid to wire the nation for internet.
The ARPANET was created by three universities, one of which I attended, UCSB.
Gates made his fortune by creating an economic revolution in the USA in the 1990s, creating tremendous employment and income opportunities for Americans.
@dilbertgeg As I see it, an intellectual property patent ensures that the person who devotes his time, his education and his own intellect to producing something new and useful retains ownership of the product of his labor so that he can earn an income from it.
Gates also got a huge tax-free income by creating a Tax-Free Foundation and hiding his gains in it. Rockefeller pushed govt to create that trick and change tax laws to favor the Rich, make working people middle class pay more to support lifestyles of rich and famous.
Super rich can't spend all profits on own lives, maybe w offspring, but they DO shuffle it via donations to meddle world politics and financially conquer the planet.
Many of top wealth support Democrats, esp Rockefeller-linked.
@dilbertgeg So, the Socialist system is what allows corrupt people like Soros, Obama, Gore and the others to seize our assets then hand billions of our dollars to the most corrupt people possible - who happen to serve their interests. ACORN, Rahm Emanuel (of Freddie Mac), Franklin Raines (of Fannie Mae)... people who in a just society would be behind bars for their crimes.
But they're buddies with the Socialists - so they get our stuff.
2) it's money he stole by finance manipulation, currency speculation, i.e. CAPITALISM.
3) Soros works w Freedom House. Launched by CIA Dir Woolsey. That is 90% neocon + military, Rumsfeld's asst Adelson, James Baker, Brzezinski, Ruth Wedgwood. Look it up.
4) Soros works w NED, created by Reagan to do CIA subversion openly.
You are saying Reagan was a Marxist?
US global empire incl Cold War is really Socialism and Marxism? WHAT A KOOK!
@dilbertgeg Soros relies on his buddies in government to pull the strings to make him rich. For example: Soros is a major investor in PetroBras (Brazilian Oil Co.) PetroBras stock takes a dive. Five months later, alarms are ignored on an oil rig in the Gulf, it explodes. Obama uses the crisis to kill domestic oil drilling opportunities. Our tax dollars are diverted to PetroBras so it can take up deep-water drilling US is no longer allowed to do. Soros investment is saved.
Carlyle private equity firm for military contracts included Bush Sr. and old hands like Baker and Carlucci, also John Major, but also Salem Binladen and George Soros.
Trireme private equity firm included Richard Perle and Kissinger when Perle was directly advising the Pentagon on purchases and actions.
Other "foreign" lobby groups are filled with U.S. military CEOs, not only AIPAC but also Turkey, Pakistan, etc.
@dilbertgeg When I speak of modern-day Socialists, I speak of exactly what Karl Marx envisioned - government with the power to seize assets, the ruling elite living in luxury with the take, then dole out small portions as needed to keep the "cattle" herded along. Marx HATED to work, even to earn bread for his starving wife and daughters. That's why he cooked up that scheme and the nice-sounding sales pitch to trick the "useful idiots" into accepting it.
The new liberals - they are real socialists, they are still sometimes refer to themselves as people with progressive views. The classical liberal ideas are now being forced to called libertarianism. Greetings from Russia, where it (socialism) Hell was almost 100 years, do not repeat mistakes. P.S. sorry for bad english
qtec666user 1 day ago
i'm an anarchist. the only way to progress is to be rid of the forces holding it back. in the libertarian socialist tradition.
gonzopoet00 5 days ago
It's very cool to go find Phil Ochs' original version of this song and look up the events and people he talked about--it's a different impact, to me,
<3!
LitLBirdLitLBird 1 week ago
It's just sad that the version of the song with the most views has these unfortunate pictures, which attract ignorant right wing comments.
drizztf88 2 weeks ago
oh my god...1:39, I cannot stop laughing. I would give that man every dime I had on me if I saw him on the street.
thehindmost88 2 weeks ago
Classical liberalism is reactionary bullshit. Modern liberalism is corporate bullshit. Fuck all kinds of liberalism.
lathouxaris 1 month ago
lovin' j-e-l-l-o!
thehouseofcrow 1 month ago
I'm a hardcore liberal and this song is on my iPod! Sometimes we all need to chill out and poke fun at ourselves... conservatives, that includes you too. ;)
norcalprogressive 2 months ago
Not just planes can be hijacked, words can be hijacked as well,The word liberal is a title to be worn with shame.Obama is the 1% and is 99% moron.
hatewog 2 months ago 7
Classical Liberalism is something to be proud of though. Because thats what I am.
scienceatheism 2 months ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@scienceatheism Classical Liberalism = Shit
Nothiean 2 months ago
Eat shit!
scienceatheism 2 months ago
@scienceatheism Jello is a Socialist, why would you say that Classical Liberalism aka Libertarianism is something to be proud here ?
777Atheist 2 weeks ago
@scienceatheism Yeah, nowadays we just cal that 'lolbertarianism'
FungalSheep 3 days ago
@hatewog Also since there is a comment about hijacking words, the term libertarianism has been hijacked by right wing social darwinists. They really fucked the term up.
drizztf88 2 weeks ago
@drizztf88 Yes I am saddened by the apparent loss of that word... ;v;!
</3,
<3!.
LitLBirdLitLBird 1 week ago
@laughingjakal YOU get it...
DickScary 2 months ago
Fuck the 1% and fuck the republicans.
TheXavierConspiracy 3 months ago
@TheXavierConspiracy thanks for the great rhetoric jackass
boblikessnapper1 2 months ago
god i hate you faggots. seriously. its a motherfucking song. you cons and libs are both assholes. neither party cares about YOU or YOUR goals. if you think any differently, then read a book. if you dont care and are willing to live in militant ignorance, happy with your red versus blue propaganda, then you can fuck off. our country doesnt need a left wing or a right wing. what we need is a FUCKING SPINE.
laughingjakal 3 months ago
NEWSFLASH: Basically everybody is full of shit... except Jello Biafra.
alemmingsdeath 3 months ago
Fuck idiot conservative assholes like you Mark!! Pull your head out of your ass and just maybe you'll actually see the light!! F'ing moron.
texasdragonfly50 3 months ago
FUCK LIBERAL ASSHOLES!
REWHBLCAIN 3 months ago
What do you define as left wing then? And why do you hate us? Liberal is not the same as left wing, and left wing doesn't mean Stalinist either.
Anarchista siempre
Redstar226 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Times have changed. We're all members of the 99% now. Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians - go fuck yourselves.
robertemmet321 4 months ago
@robertemmet321 I guess you would be who we are supporting with our hard labor. Well, at least your more polite than your fellow occupiers
Dmain1Event 4 months ago 6
@robertemmet321 99% is a skewed statistic. It's misinforming. You sound like a zomibie. Jesus.
boblikessnapper1 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@boblikessnapper1 "misinforming"? LOL. You sound like a dolt, although maybe I'm "misunderestimating" you.
robertemmet321 2 months ago
@robertemmet321 The Occupy Wall Street "movement" is 99% bullshit.
IsaacBaranoff 1 month ago
"Quit hitting me up about how I am using a left wing song for right wing purposes." Hmmm.... first, it's not a left wing song, it's an outsiders song. Second, despite your comment, it is what it is.....you are, after all, only singling out Democrats. I think you need to get your head out of Fox "News' " ass. You may hate the Refusicans, but you are most definitely a con.
rcpmfanmatt 4 months ago
Jello is referring to Bill Clinton here, not Hillary. This is the version of the Phil Ochs (he of blessed memory!) tune he updated in the 90's. He's since done an update that does indeed snark "I cheeered when Obama was chosen, my faith in the system restored."'
Although for the record, like many of his 60's left wing colleagues, dear Phil was a total sexist. I'd like to think he'd be all straightened out now he was alive and well.
gropingwithastoker 4 months ago
But what's the percentage of women in politics to lampoon?
passiflora99 5 months ago
He sounds like the lead singer of Dead Kennedys
ginad17 5 months ago
@ginad17 He is.....
SteaZandPizza 5 months ago
@SteaZandPizza well that explains that haha
ginad17 5 months ago
@ginad17 yeah lol.
SteaZandPizza 5 months ago
@surkhalam Africans continue to engage in slavery today. Back then, they actively rounded up their neighbors and sold them into slavery to whomever was buying. It's an African practice that was legalized in the British colony of Jamestown by a black African man who wanted black slaves rather than indentured servants.
Americans fought to end the practice after they separated from Britain. But, in Africa, it still goes strong.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
And here you are, honest to goodness, trying to justify centuries of slavery by mostly white European men and governments with the excuse that some Africans still engage in it. Brilliant. And where do you think they caught that from, you idiot? Out of thin air? No. African slavery is a consequence of years and years of ambitious, merciless, imperialistic rulers, who took the Moors (Africans) for their labourers, which the Africans in turn used for their own means.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest The practice of slavery in Africa preceded even the Arab slave raids. It has been going on for thousands of years.
The African practice of slavery was imported to the Jamestown colony by a black African, not by Europeans.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Or what about the South African apartheid, stipulated by a decades long government of purely white men, where the black population where kept in districts, encased and locked away from the rest of the country?
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@surkhalam "but slavery was as american as apple pie and Property"
Absolutely wrong. It was an African practice, brought to the British Colonies, that was despised by the founders who penned American ideology. Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to condemn the practice and seek abolition in his original version of the Declaration of Independence. It was another half century before the Americans were able to wage that fight, though Democrats fought hard to preserve slavery.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
libral girls dont fuck well
freebirth777 7 months ago
@surkhalam "you failed miserably when you tried to claim that republicans were somehow "opposed" to the 3/5ths clause"
Show me where I said that.
You are making things up then arguing against yourself.
You are a compleat idiot.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Well if it isn't AmericaSpeakOut1 :.p, I guess you're not here because you're such a big fan of Jello (I am).
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie I honestly haven't heard much of his music. I'll look into it. Might be fun!
I'll go over to the other discussion and reply - I reckon it's likely you have posted there. I've been in Hawaii lately, very busy on a project, sorry for the long absence.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Well you don't have to react if you don't want to. & I'll warn you Jello has been a presidential candidate for the GPUS, staunchly anti-conservative & a non-anarcho-capitalist anarchist. Besides somehow I somehow just don't think you're going to like punk, or Phil Ochs's kind of folk. But you're free too look of course, & don't forget his spoken word!
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
@surkhalam So, you did not read the Jamestown articles I posted for you.
I can lead an ass to knowledge but I can't make him learn. Just keep on hee-hawing.
And, no, I made no claim regarding Repubilcans and the 3/5 clause. You clearly failed to actually read what I wrote.
This is a good demonstration of the difference between the educated conservative and the sneering leftie. Yup.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@surkhalam The Republican Party, as I said, dragged the Democrats kicking and screaming into recognizing black people as human beings. That started around the time of Abraham Lincoln. Remember History 101?
Those southern Democrats fought back, of course, hoping to keep their "property rights" intact.
They were forced to accept that "all men are created equal" by the Republicans.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@surkhalam Seriously, your history teacher was remiss. Jamestown became prosperous once private property rights and capitalism were put into place. That's where the first Thanksgiving originated...
Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America
cato. org/pub_display. php?pub_id=8236
Collectivism created starvation in Jamestown. Switch to Capitalism saved the colony, producing prosperity.
steeplemedia. com/blogs/son_of_liberty/archive/2008/10/28/socialism-in-america-failed-once.aspx
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You forgot to mention that Republicans were Liberal and that Democrats were Conservatives....
777Atheist 8 months ago
@surkhalam "why didn't they mention it by name then?"
Weren't you told?
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
They knew about it going back at least as far as the Jamestown Colony, which nearly starved to death because of Socialism.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@surkhalam You're talking about the work to incorporate black people into representation in government. Those southern Democrats had to be forced to recognize black people as human beings at all. As long as they would not allow black people to vote, they could not claim the black population for full representation in the House of Representatives.
The Republicans had to drag them, kicking and screaming, into obedience to the founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
@surkhalam "if it's a "social contract" then why does it need to be "enforced"?"
I think the question is, what does a group of people do when certain members violate the social contract?
They enforce it.
AmericaSpeakOut1 8 months ago
This song is by Phil Ochs, who is very left wing. He was criticizing liberals from a left wing point of view, not the right.
roboimp 8 months ago 36
@roboimp I have always loved this Phil Ochs song, a pity he's not around to comment on the Obama's school choice for their children.
Vydio 8 months ago
Jello's version is great, but DickScary is apparently vagina scary. Radical male comrades, why do you turn out to be less radical and more "liberal" when it comes to women? Almost all of the liberals criticized by this video are women. How can you not go after Hilary but not Obama?
Annarianexile 9 months ago
@Annarianexile Uh...because, if you look at the date on the video, Obama wasn't really a name yet, and Hillary was the expected nominee. It is true that I am not a fan of Hillary, but that has nothing to do with her sex, so nice try on that. Actually, after re-watching the video just now, I seem to have more males than females portrayed. Quit looking for sexism where it doesn't exist.
DickScary 9 months ago 12
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
Annarianexile 9 months ago
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
Annarianexile 9 months ago
@Annarianexile I just wanted to post to say that I agree with your comment (lest you think that you are without allies among radical men :) ).
I think there's a trope of the "dumb liberal woman" that is easy to reference and criticize and that the very existence of this stereotype is obviously a product of our sexist culture. I didn't watch too much of the video (I just wanted to hear the song), but it seemed like that was what it was often doing and DS oughtta think about this some.
nattypilcher 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)....
Annarianexile 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DickScary : First of all, sexism (like racism) exists everywhere to different degrees, my friend. It might be time you look a little harder in the mirror. Most sexism does not come in the form of "I don't like her cuz shes female." We are all sexist (though, to very different degrees) because we are products of a sexist society. Secondly, your date doesn't make sense. Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 and this was made 8 months later (well in the heat of obama fever)...........
Annarianexile 9 months ago
this video is incredibly relevant in light of the osama murder. gotta love all the "bleeding heart" liberals that voted for nobel peace prize winner obama relishing in the blood sacrifice made to the blood gods. YEAEEAH WE GOT EM OBAMAAAA FUCK THEM TERRISTS but bush was a meanie!!!!!
MrAgooddog 9 months ago
@MrAgooddog He was cleaning up Bush mess that he left behind
dal4018 9 months ago
@dal4018 lol if u think he's cleaning up anything. u are the liberal that this song is about. it is u.
MrAgooddog 9 months ago
@MrAgooddog Okay then what is Obama doing?
dal4018 9 months ago
@MrAgooddog
Lol. Bush started the two wars, genius. He also enacted the patriot act, enacted the surveillance act, opened Guantamo Bay, covered up waterboarding. Among other seriously fucked up shit. The first thing Obama did in office was sign a stimulus bill in hopes of stabilizing the economy. He's then gone on to attempt getting universal healthcare passed in the US, with opposition from the Repubs. He didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but so what? He's done more for peace than Bush.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest The residents of Libya and Yemen may not share your opinion of BO.
Vydio 8 months ago
@Vydio
Barack Obama did not cause the conflict in Libya. Barack Obama did not bomb the country for no reason. Barack Obama did not *bomb* the country, only for a free-fire zone to prevent planes from leaving the ground. Barack Obama is not waging a war against Libya. Barack Obama is not in charge of the war. NATO is and the UN is. Should I go on? Again, he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. But he's done more for peace than Bush. Way more.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
Sorry, should have put quotation marks on "war." Intervention is more accurate.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest We are NATO members, so yes we are waging war if NATO is. So he obtained the free-fire zone by bombing it? Whatever, but he ought to at least obey the law and get Congressional approval, like President Bush did.
Vydio 8 months ago
@Vydio
Bush did not get permission from Congress to invade Iraq. Your grasp of history is already slipping. However once again, Barack Obama is not in charge of this "war" (intervention). NATO is. The US is only a member country of NATO, but isn't in "charge" of NATO. The one leading the charge into Libya is the leader of the UN, Nikolas Sarkozy. *Not* Barack Obama.
The free-fire zone was deemed essential to prevent Gaddafi or his staff from leaving the country. Also in case of fighter jets.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Vydio
This was made in accordance to the United Nation Security Council Resolution act from 1973. I don't agree with the bombing, and I don't agree with them sending drones. I don't agree with how they've reported feeling almost complicit aiding the rebel forces, or how they didn't send their troops on the ground sooner to help out. But I also don't agree to a dictator thinking he can kill his own people and no one will notice or care.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest Frankly I don't care what the UN says, BO has a legal obligation to go through Congress. Which President Bush did in October of 2002. BTW, Nikolas Sarkozy is not the head of the United Nations.
Vydio 8 months ago
@Vydio
Well no matter what you think or don't think about the UN or what the UN says, that's what got NATO into Libya. And no matter what you think about Bush, he lied through his teeth to Congress about the WMD's in Iraq. That is not really getting approval from Congress. That's lying. Not to mention his mission was to capture, apprehend or otherwise incapacitate bin Laden, which by his own admission did not care or think about.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest "no matter what you think about Bush, he lied through his teeth to Congress about the WMD's in Iraq"
No, he didn't. We've found over 500 of those chemical munitions that the UN searched for years and could not find. Also, we've recovered the nuclear weapons starter kit that was provided to Iraq by the Pakistani scientist, Khan. Same kits were provided to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Iran and NK put theirs to good use.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Because you're a bit behind on the news...
PDF: Report to Congress on findings of WMD that Saddam hid from UN Inspectors
captainsquartersblog. com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf
CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment
fas. org/irp/news/2003/06/cia062603.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest What's more, when Bill Clinton committed the US to military destruction of Saddam's regime with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - it wasn't just because he was thwarting the disarmament mandates. It was because his behavior showed other rogue nations, like North Korea and Iran, that they could get away with it through sheer stubbornness. Clinton was correct - that could not be allowed to continue. He resumed full hostilities with the bombing of Iraq in Dec, 1998.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest
The United States doesn't need UN approval to use its military force.
Vydio 8 months ago
@Vydio
Furthermore NATO is not restricted according to the United States Congress. And I think it's immoral that the United States Congress can lay down judgment on a country simply because the United States Congress says so. The United States Congress also needs to adhere to the Geneva Convention, which they didn't do in 2001 when they "posthumously" approved the Iraq war. But that's for another time.
And it's not a war, it's an intervention. NATO is not waging war against Libya.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest It's a war. And our Congress approved Iraq in 2002, not 2001.
Vydio 8 months ago
@Vydio
Yes, pardon me. 2002. And I meant to say Ban-ki Moon, not Nikolas Sarkozy. Not sure what got into me. Anyway.
No, Libya is not a war! It's not a war! There's a *civil war* going on in Libya, but that is neither here nor there. The civil war is between the government of Libya and the people of Libya. What NATO is waging is not a war, but an intervention, to prevent a potential genocide a la Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot. They're stymying the conflict, not creating it. There's the difference.
Pitchguest 8 months ago
@Pitchguest How many Libyans are being murdered by NATO to help the Muslim Brotherhood get control of yet another nation?
The rebels started the conflict and obligated the Libyan military to defend its nation against internal insurgency. That does not obligate us to murder Libyans to help the insurgents achieve their goals. Not by a long shot.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest "NATO is not waging war against Libya"
Sending in military force to murder uncounted thousands of Libyans to overthrow its government and help a new power take over the country... that's waging war.
If those bombs were falling on your home town to help the Muslim Brotherhood seize power, you might understand.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest "Barack Obama is not waging a war against Libya. Barack Obama is not in charge of the war. NATO is and the UN is."
That's about the most alarming thing you have said. The US military is under UN command to overthrow a foreign nation that was merely trying to defend itself against takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood... wow!
The USA is in serious trouble if foreign powers can command its military.
Legally, Obama is our CinC. Has he given up that authority to foreign powers?
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
What the fuck are you talking, defending itself against a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood? The people of Libya wanted a revolution and wished for a new government and the current leader of Libya, Gaddafi, went fucking nuts, fired most of his staff, kept his most loyal in the government and the military and said fuck you to everyone else. He would kill everyone who opposed him; any man, woman or child, any civilian, he'd murder to help him remain in power.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest The Muslim Brotherhood, an extremely aggressive sect with the destruction of Israel and the USA as goals, has seized great power in Egypt and is working to get Libya as well. They've been trying for decades to get rid of Ghadaffi - he's too 'soft' for the Jihadis.
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize
articles. cnn. com/2011-03-25/world/libya.islamists_1_moammar-gadhafi-libyan-regime-benghazi?_s=PM:WORLD
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
The US is not overthrowing ANYONE! Aren't you listening? It's not a fucking WAR! It's an intervention! The only thing the US, Barack Obama, has done is help make a free-fire zone. Nothing else! He has no troops on the ground, he has no power over the troops from NATO on the ground, he has no power over the rebel insurgents on the ground. Nothing! How on EARTH do you equate this to "overthrow[ing] a foreign nation"? HOW?
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Libya did not start a war with any foreign nation. The Libyan government has fought for decades to prevent Jihadis from seizing control. The Jihadis have been trying for decades to overthrow the Libyan government and seize control.
This time, Obama is using US military force to attack and overthrow a nation, killing uncounted numbers of Libyans, to help the Muslim Brotherhood seize power just as Obama's buddies helped them in Egypt.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
You absolute imbecile. The decision for NATO to oppose the Libyan government didn't materialize out of thin air. It came from somewhere. It came when Gaddafi said he would show no mercy for anyone who would oppose him, which includes civilians - and he drew first blood. Many of the rebel insurgents in Libya *were not* rebel insurgents to begin with, but peaceful protesters with placards - who got shot at by Gaddafi and his military goons!
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Guess what? The US Constitution mandates use of force against any internal insurgencies trying to overthrow the US government, including Communist groups comprised of "civilians".
Ghadaffi is exercising the same national defense as any sensible nation would. Anyone trying to overthrow the nation gets shot. The same applies in the USA.
The same applied in Kosovo, when the Serbs tried to stop the Islamist takeover. Clinton/NATO helped them conquer yet another chunk of territory.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
...They weren't trying to 'overthrow the government,' you human paraquat, they were standing outside with placards peacefully protesting for a change in government! You've also grossly misunderstood the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the right to bear arms, where it's the CIVILIANS' right to form a MILITIA if the GOVERNMENT should ever try to DOMINATE its people. In other words, the REBELS are in the right! IN OTHER WORDS, fuck YOU, you inbred ingrate cunt.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Of course, you won't recognise this fact - which has been documented many, many times - because you're a complacent, ignorant conservative Republican idiot. You then bring up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and speak as if they're related to Egypt (much like another idiot I spoke to about Libya who says Al-Qaeda is behind everything) and then you have the NERVE to imply the US had anything to do with the Egyptian revolution. My god, you're a *moron.* Stop talking.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Are you COMPLETELY unaware that American Communists, close buddies of Obama, were in fact working hard to organize the Egyptian revolt? YOU IGNORAMUS.
Go look up William Ayers (the guy who launched Obama's political career) and Bernardine Dohrn. See what they organized in Egypt as well as organizing the flotilla to try to run the Israeli blockade. They're still at it. Code Pink as well.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Ahahaha, just conspiracy theory upon conspiracy theory with you. YES, I'm completely unaware of it, BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT! Do you have any evidence of ANY of your assertions, ANY AT ALL? And I mean real, CONCRETE evidence, and not obscure bloggers or Alex Jones or STORMFRONT or whatever 'source' you THINK is reliable.
What Bill Ayers organizes has *nothing* to do with Barack Obama! Nada! Zip! Your 'theories' are absurd and you're grasping at straws.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You're as thick as pigshit. Obama is the servant of corporate boardrooms, not a 'communist' befriender, you fucking dolt.
retchen 5 months ago
@retchen Do you really think the Communist Party USA would back a "Free Private Enterprise" kind of guy? No.
He's using his power to play favorites in the corporate world all right, favoring those who serve the Democrat/Communist Party at the expense of others. That's standard operating procedure for Communists/Fascists.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago
@retchen I wish. The man is a stone cold communist. Was it Lenin who said he would buy ropes from capitalists so as to hang them with the very same ropes? Loosely quoted. Think of him in that light. He is going to usher in World Wide Communism (read... Hell on Earth) via the U.N with China leading the way. You enviro nuts' heads are going to explode when that happens. That will be my only solice.
Dmain1Event 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@retchen I wish. The man is a stone cold communist. Was it Lenin who said he would buy ropes from capitalists so as to hang them with the very same ropes? Loosely quoted. Think of him in that light. He is going to usher in World Wide Communism (read... Hell on Earth) via the U.N with China leading the way. You enviro nuts' heads are going to explode when that happens. That will be my only solice.
Dmain1Event 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
And finally, the UN has ZERO power over the US. NATO has ZERO power over the US. The US has given up ZERO authority to "foreign powers." Any act in this conflict, in this intervention, by the US has been done by their own hand. NATO *asked* the US for help in constituting a no-fly zone* and they agreed. Nothing more and nothing less.
*a little correction on my previous posts. They did not make a "free-fire zone," but a "no-fly zone." Sorry for any confusion.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Obama insists he is not directing this war to overthrow a foreign nation, that it is a NATO operation and that NATO is in control.
That is Obama relinquishing his job as CinC to a foreign power. He makes this claim to protect himself against justified condemnation as the "great imperialist" attacking other nations without the justification of US National Defense.
The CPUSA is helping in this game, blaming NATO rather than Obama for "imperialism".
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Oh for... he's NOT relinquishing his position as CinC to NATO! How could he? It's not an American operation! If it *was* an American operation in the *first place* and then Obama let NATO take over in place OF America, commanding AMERICAN troops, etc, THEN we're talking "relinquishing." Obama is NOT a "key" player in Libya and he never WAS. He helped with the no-fly zone, that's it. Moreover, SWEDEN helped with the no-fly zone. Is SWEDEN occupying Libya? I don't think so.
Pitchguest 7 months ago
@Pitchguest Don't you see - that's the problem. It's not just a no-fly zone. You're dead wrong. They are actively killing Libyan people on the ground to help another group seize control of Libya. They're also killing Libyans in hopes of catching Gadhaffi with one of the bombs.
What is the plan to establish control of Libya, per the Geneva Conventions, to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadis do NOT seize control in the power vacuum?
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
@Pitchguest In fact, the Obama plan is to help the Muslim Brotherhood, which is devoted to destruction of Israel and the USA, seize control of Libya just as Obama applauded their power grab in Egypt.
They are among the people fighting to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
AmericaSpeakOut1 7 months ago
This shit's hillarious. I've heard it before & it never gets old!
MemphisConservative 10 months ago
@elgringorumbero
This is true, however, it is interesting because Mojo Nixon is a libertarian according to Wikipedia.
BenjaminWirtz 10 months ago
AS1: If someone works for a tax-exempt foundation, do they report their income and pay taxes on it?
DUH! Is the secretary taxed? That's your question?
The organization may be exempt .
Not that, it's a special Corporate TAX SHELTER.
Tax exempt is not mooching - it is merely not having one's money taken.
IT IS MOOCHING when SOME have special privilege, but others pay. It's like Affirmative Action that wingnuts hate, but for wealthy & powerful, not poor underclass, so rightists approve of that.
dilbertgeg 10 months ago
oh when will people understand that cons and libs are one in the same?
Sheillala2008 11 months ago 6
@Sheillala2008 At lib meetings, the handouts are often Communist literature. The literature often has stated goals on it including "destruction of the American system". And, they wear shirts portraying Ernesto Guevara, the Stalinist thug who wanted to nuke New York.
At conservative meetings, the handouts are often the Founding documents of this nation and their ideology is adherence to American principles. They are shocked at libs voting for our nation's enemies.
There is a difference.
AmericaSpeakOut1 10 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The irony is that American corporatism has been developed into something resembling Stalinism.
dilbertgeg 10 months ago
@dilbertgeg "The irony is that American corporatism has been developed into something resembling Stalinism."
I completely agree - but it is the Government that has become Stalinist. The corporations now have to endure those conditions and try to survive - or buy favor - under the system illegally created by government ignoring the limitations on their power spelled out in the US Constitution.
Our Founders were well aware of Socialism and tried to protect us against it.
AmericaSpeakOut1 10 months ago
@dilbertgeg "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
AmericaSpeakOut1 10 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You've never been to a "lib meeting".
kidonlyle 8 months ago
thanks for adding man, i agree with you 100% on politics in this country
WVliberty 11 months ago
HAHA LOVIN 2:21
Problems123 1 year ago
Is it really worth arguing with somebody who subscribes to BanGayMarriage? He's obviously not going to listen to you or doesn't even sincerely believe the things he types. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Stop.
SpazzyLoLazzy 1 year ago
@SpazzyLoLazzy Sorry, but you are not thinking clearly. Let me ask - do I want to ban gay marriage? If you believe you know my mind and what I believe, you should be able to answer that question truthfully.
Go ahead, tell everyone here what I believe.
Then I'll laugh my ass off at you - because you have no way of knowing aside from asking me.
AmericaSpeakOut1 11 months ago
you must be a wall street banker, complex finances, i'll say cdo's, sub prime mortgages, silver shorts, gold manipulation then when it all blows up guess who pays them off. socialism for the rich. wake up and smell the coffee. even buffett called their complex finances financial weapons of mass destruction. wall street creates nothing but takes everything. but thanks for the reply mr. gordon gecko we are doomed
1dmartig 1 year ago
geez marx was a moocher who just wanted to get his hands on other peoples money and did not want to work for a living? sounds like a wall street banker to me. btw was that groucho , harpo , chico or zeppo?
1dmartig 1 year ago
@1dmartig Wall street bankers have worked hard, educated themselves and acquired the skillsets to manage complex finances. Karl Marx was simply devoted to revolution to overthrow the existing system so he and his bullies could seize control of everyone else's stuff.
Marx was most unlike a wall street banker. The very notion of going to work every day is what he hated most - that's why he cooked up the "I Take Your Stuff" scheme.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 "manage complex finances" = steal money from everyone else. You don't understand how Wall Street works. You don't understand how the Fed system works, obviously. You don't understand that financial capitalism is a producer of nothing at all, it's at best a way to organize capital and leech profits, now it's a way to destroy productive capital and loot pensions and tangible equity. Hence, capitalism has been destroyed by capitalists.
dilbertgeg 10 months ago
Obama = destroy (fundamentally transform) the system
Americans = defend the system as originally defined
Gorbachev = I drink your milkshake!
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
liberal=change within the system
Anarchist=jello biafra=revolution/class war
MrLlama2000 1 year ago
I hope you understand that while many people like @dilbertgeg see the rosy side of capitalism, that was not Phil Och's or Jello Biafra's view. The historical problems with unregulated century capitalism included windows and orphans starving in the streets, workers kept in grossly unsafe conditions for 14 hour workdays, and an uncaring and unfeeling upper class ruling over it all. The point of liberalism is freedom and compassion, and balance between the left and right.
jprofVT 1 year ago
@jprofVT you've mistaken me for someone else
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
YOU SEE KIDS, right and left is a methaphor which describes all human diversity and range of truth under the sun.
communistfun 1 year ago
im a communist , FUCK YOU!
communistfun 1 year ago
Give me a Liberal over a Leftist any day.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
If every American was taxed 100% of their income, it would not resolve America's debt and budget crisis.
150 years ago the London Times proclaimed that if America was debt-free, it would attract the best and brightest people from all the world and would destroy the Monarchies - therefore the American system of government must be destroyed.
The Left are achieving that goal, with nice-sounding programs really intended to bankrupt the nation, just as they told us they would for decades.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 They could TAX ZERO INCOME but 100% of unethical UNEARNED gains from fin speculation and gains on (a) nature (b) legal privilege (c) regulatory advantage.
Govt would be debt free AND could increase spending on social problems and infrastructure.
AND it would create more jobs instead of taxpayers subsidy to send jobs offshore.
This is a deliberate attack.
Nice-sounding programs like "the Rich should keep all they worked for", but they added ZERO "WORK" just leverage.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg How about we tax foreign imports, like they do to us? Many countries have a 100% tax on US imports, ensuring job creation for their own people. That could solve our budget problems and restore American manufacturing really quickly.
Investors earn a return on the money they've put into helping others build a company, become productive, have jobs. The employees ALSO will earn vested stock in a well-run company. I see no justification to seize their gains.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Taxation at 100% of earned income would NOT resolve America's debt crisis for a couple reasons.
1. The truly wealthy elite avoid taxable income. They have gains, and much of that the govt they "own" permits them to hide offshore or deduct via shell companies, offshore banking scam.
2. Taxation was meant to be on UNEARNED income, not the sweat of brow of one laboring for food, clothing, and shelter. It was meant to tax elite privilege. The elite love their free lunch.
dilbertgeg 10 months ago
@dilbertgeg When Thomas Jefferson became President, he eliminated all personal taxation. That was the intent.
Taxation on imports would be the tax on luxury, since all basic necessities were produced domestically.
Now we have leftists in government, conditioned to HATE private enterprise, taxing domestic production to death while encouraging foreign import. The whole foundational system has been turned upside down with catastrophic results.
Elect Constitutionalists - or else.
AmericaSpeakOut1 10 months ago
I do not understand why most of the Jello Biafra songs I've heard have his voice so hard to hear/understand. It may be that hearing his words clearly is not really that important. Maybe it's a clever ploy to get folks to look further, do some homework, etc. As as musician, if pisses me off that both tune and words are not well mixed. I'm thinking Jello has a mainly deaf friend of decades who does his mixing or something. Oh well.
lancethrustworthy 1 year ago
True Liberals are like the Founders of this nation - they believe in freedom from government control. Today, we call them "conservatives".
Today's Leftists, calling themselves "liberals", are cooking up any excuse they can think of to seize and redistribute your wealth (to their supporters) and take away your clearly spelled-out Rights.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ummm, "liberals" are not the only one's guilty of such "behavior."
That's pretty much sole-american value.
Verminshow 1 year ago
@Verminshow I know plenty of Americans who believe firmly in individual liberty and freedom from oppression and respect for the rights (including property rights) of others. They tend to appear at TEA Party gatherings and can be found in many other patriot groups nationwide.
So, the thieving mindset is not a sole-american value, it is a distinction between American values and the Left. The Leftist motto is "I TAKE YOUR STUFF!", the American motto is "STOP TAKING MY STUFF".
:-D
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Your perception is well understood, tho I don't think it is as generally embraced as you insist. While the majority mindset does seem to speak out for individual rights and "respect" for others and all the rest of it, stangnant lifestyles based on the proposed promotion and sustenence of such does not seem to be possible to hold a constant in such a society basing itself on such claims.
Verminshow 1 year ago
@Verminshow Yet do to it's economic laundering, where the motto is "everything for sale", it just seems to damn all attempted efforts at such a "cooperative" or "coexistential" aim.
Verminshow 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 DAMN RIGHT!
STOP TAKING ALL OUR STUFF and STOP GIVING IT TO THE SUPER-RICH ON GOVT HANDOUTS and TO MULTI-NATIONAL CAPITALISTS WHO DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT AMERICA ANYHOW.
oh, that isn't what you meant? you want to keep giving away wealth to the Super Rich? Sorry about the shouting, maybe I got your attention. Even the freaking CATO INSTITUTE started by David Koch of Tea Party has lots of articles on corporate welfare, even calling Republicans worse than Democrats.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg "STOP TAKING ALL OUR STUFF and STOP GIVING IT TO THE SUPER-RICH ON GOVT HANDOUTS"
Agreed. Get Obama out NOW before he hands more Billions to his crooked buddies!!
Rahm Emanuel was on the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, lying about earnings to pocket tens of millions in bonuses, ran the company into the ground. That schmuck should be behind bars! Obama shoveled our cash into his pockets and gave him a cush Government job.
Damn commies!
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
I think a lot of you is missing the big picture; this is a great version of a great song. Its on point and damn funny! Sometime truth does hurt.
richmotroni 1 year ago
Crawdaddy, I do agree with you that much of what they appear to be doing is the self-serving, placating stuff. But what are they doing behind the scenes? Pillaging the US treasury and driving the US into unrecoverable debt. Establishing Fascist government control over US industry, banking, the media. Forcibly blocking US energy production to make the US dependent upon hostile nations for its very survival.
They're doing BIG things - largely unreported.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Okay, there, buddy. Yep, Soros, the guy who keeps sponsoring revolutions against the Communist Party, is a socialist, and so is the neoliberal Obama, and Gorbachev, who gave the go-ahead to the policies that fell the Soviet Union and is now basically a liberal capitalist, and Al Gore, who sat as vice president on one of the most deregulatory administrations in the history of this nation. Yep, they're socialists. SOCIALISTS, I SAY!
CrawdaddyJoe 1 year ago
Crawdaddy - Lenin identified the weaksauce liberals as the "useful idiots". They're not the socialist masterminds, by any stretch, and are generally not the sharpest rocks in the creekbed either. But the SOCIALISTS, like Mikhail Gorbachev, George Soros, Al Gore, Barack Obama... are using them as cattle in the way socialists always have.
Great destruction can be accomplished by stampeding a large herd.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 calling Gorbachev, Soros, Gore, Barack, 2 Clintons "SOCIALISTS" is to torture language, to make it fit a preconceived notion of Dems circa 33. That's neoliberal hyper-capitalism and imperialism, a "soft" version of the Cold War and Empire, that's all. "Corporate Socialism" is not a genuine term, it's meant as an oxymoron, the attributes of Socialism, sharing the wealth, but by seizing wealth from Laborers, redistributing it to Wealthy Elites, the antithesis of Socialism.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg I almost agree with what you're saying. However, whenever government is given the power to seize assets, at will, then redistribute to whomever "deserves" it, human nature invariably turns that very nice vision of Socialism into the horror we see in so many countries. It is inevitable that the most corrupt people, folks like Karl Marx himself, will seek the power to take other people's stuff to do what they wish with it all.
Castro does not hunger with his "comrades".
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 {whenever government is given the power to seize assets, at will, then redistribute to whomever "deserves" it}
Capitalism in the US has *ALWAYS* seized assets from WORKERS and given them to the LAZY IDLE RICH who "own" this country.
Albert Jay Nock explained in Liberty vs. the Constitution, but as we got more advanced, the wealthy elite have demanded more and more government handouts for their corporations, protection, R & D, foreign aid, military spending, etc. Lazy scum.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg "the wealthy elite have demanded more and more government handouts for their corporations"
Do you see? You just agreed with me. GOVERNMENT seizing assets then redistributing them to whomever they decide "deserve" it. Like Barack Obama shoveling billions of our dollars into corporations run by his crooked buddies Rahm Emanuel and Franklin Raines, claiming, "they are too big to fail".
Obama decided they deserved it and did the Socialist thing, handed them OUR cash.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 look up Executive and Board of FM. It's a private corp. Bush *ordered* FM to buy more mortgages from private banks they also ran.
for Obama's capitalist banking connections, see Littlesis _ org.
Emanuel grabbed 18 M in 2 yrs as invest banker before joining Dems.
I agree w you on TBTF. Insolvents needed forced bankruptcy, and prevent a cascade break in payments.
Q: why were they ALLOWED to dump laws+regulations against crime and fraud? Quick profits.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg Meanwhile, look at Bill Gates. Whose money does he steal? I worked for the guy. We got vested stock in the company, so we profited by the excess income generated by our labor. Gates got very rich and used his money to help others, wiring the entire nation and every school for internet access, over a billion dollars to fight AIDS and so on. Lazy Idle Rich? No.
Again, the real problem arises when government assumes the power to seize money from some and hand it to their buddies.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 yes, Gates is savvy businessman.
1) where would Gates be without Internet?
2) how was Internet created? WHO paid for that? (We the Ppl paid. Why are we paying for it again?)
3) how much of Gates profits came from Govt contracts?
4) Did Gates daddy's fortune come from Fed gov business? Yes.
5) Read libertarians' conflicting views of Intellectual Property patents. It's govt intervention to halt competition, increase prices. Increases innovation? No, usually blocks innovation.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg Gates made his money from Windows. It solved the problem we all complained about - that different programs needed their own video and printer drivers and could not work together.
Gates personally paid to wire the nation for internet.
The ARPANET was created by three universities, one of which I attended, UCSB.
Gates made his fortune by creating an economic revolution in the USA in the 1990s, creating tremendous employment and income opportunities for Americans.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg As I see it, an intellectual property patent ensures that the person who devotes his time, his education and his own intellect to producing something new and useful retains ownership of the product of his labor so that he can earn an income from it.
Is that wrong?
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
Gates also got a huge tax-free income by creating a Tax-Free Foundation and hiding his gains in it. Rockefeller pushed govt to create that trick and change tax laws to favor the Rich, make working people middle class pay more to support lifestyles of rich and famous.
Super rich can't spend all profits on own lives, maybe w offspring, but they DO shuffle it via donations to meddle world politics and financially conquer the planet.
Many of top wealth support Democrats, esp Rockefeller-linked.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg So, the Socialist system is what allows corrupt people like Soros, Obama, Gore and the others to seize our assets then hand billions of our dollars to the most corrupt people possible - who happen to serve their interests. ACORN, Rahm Emanuel (of Freddie Mac), Franklin Raines (of Fannie Mae)... people who in a just society would be behind bars for their crimes.
But they're buddies with the Socialists - so they get our stuff.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
1) Soros spends his OWN money.
2) it's money he stole by finance manipulation, currency speculation, i.e. CAPITALISM.
3) Soros works w Freedom House. Launched by CIA Dir Woolsey. That is 90% neocon + military, Rumsfeld's asst Adelson, James Baker, Brzezinski, Ruth Wedgwood. Look it up.
4) Soros works w NED, created by Reagan to do CIA subversion openly.
You are saying Reagan was a Marxist?
US global empire incl Cold War is really Socialism and Marxism? WHAT A KOOK!
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg Soros relies on his buddies in government to pull the strings to make him rich. For example: Soros is a major investor in PetroBras (Brazilian Oil Co.) PetroBras stock takes a dive. Five months later, alarms are ignored on an oil rig in the Gulf, it explodes. Obama uses the crisis to kill domestic oil drilling opportunities. Our tax dollars are diverted to PetroBras so it can take up deep-water drilling US is no longer allowed to do. Soros investment is saved.
That's how it works.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Good call on Soros. Guarantee you GOP does too.
Carlyle private equity firm for military contracts included Bush Sr. and old hands like Baker and Carlucci, also John Major, but also Salem Binladen and George Soros.
Trireme private equity firm included Richard Perle and Kissinger when Perle was directly advising the Pentagon on purchases and actions.
Other "foreign" lobby groups are filled with U.S. military CEOs, not only AIPAC but also Turkey, Pakistan, etc.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg When I speak of modern-day Socialists, I speak of exactly what Karl Marx envisioned - government with the power to seize assets, the ruling elite living in luxury with the take, then dole out small portions as needed to keep the "cattle" herded along. Marx HATED to work, even to earn bread for his starving wife and daughters. That's why he cooked up that scheme and the nice-sounding sales pitch to trick the "useful idiots" into accepting it.
Ditto for today's Socialists.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago