John McCain defended Romney's career on Fox News Sunday, saying, “The only place in the world that I can recall where companies never failed was the old Soviet Union. ... And yes, the free enterprise system can be cruel.”
Yes, John, it can be very cruel. Not to you, or Mitt (the Snip) Romney, or the aristocratic elites of the Republican Party, the economic elites of Wall Street, or the Koch Brothers. No, the "free enterprise system" is cruel to the American people trampled under the gilded jackboot of the corporatocracy that has seized our government and subsumed and neutralized our democracy.
The cold cruel claws of unregulated capitalism and it's servile class of minions in the Republican and Democratic Parties will reduce our country into the same conditions the Soviets inflicted on their population.
The cold cruel monstrosities of the Big Money Club already rub their hands in anticipation of austerity for the masses and increased wealth and power for the elites.
It takes cruel men to inflict cruelty on others. This is the inevitable result from the destruction of democracy.
“Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense.” – Mark Twain - 1888
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dave Dubya
- History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy. I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom. I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.
Posts
69 comments:
Businesses often failed in the old Soviet union.
Only the 'Too Big To Fail' corporations were safe from failure.
Where does McCain get this crap from?
President Barack Obama presents former President George H.W. Bush with a 2010 Medal of Freedom.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20110215-obama-honors-ex-president-george-h.w.-bush-with-medal-of-freedom.ece
They use that word a lot. I'm not sure that it means what they think it means.
Wease,
Freedom? That's what they hate us for, right?
No wonder Dylan looked so grumpy getting the same award.
What do you think are the chances a Republican President would ever honor a Democrat in such a manner?
Ha.
I'm a firm believer that no business is too big to fail. Failure is a good thing. It means a competitive system is working. The problem begins when politicians have the ability to funnel tax money to the likes of Goldman Sachs, GE, GM, Solyndra to name but a few. Then we don't have a market economy, we have a mixed one and when you privitize success and socialize failure you have a recipe for disaster. So by all means, lets end all subsidy to private business and private individuals. Lets go back to the days when companies couldn't gamble at the expense of the tax payers. I'm all for it.
...
Selfishness and greed, borne of extreme sociopathy and narcissism.
Because of their nature, they enjoy inflicting pain on others. It comes with the package.
Gee, Dubya, you use the term "capitalism" like it's a dirty word.
With all this 'conspiracy' chatter, I'll bet you're also a 'Truther', aren't you?
When you guys talk about selfishness and greed, you're talking about people who want to take money from those who are 'richer' than they are, just because they aren't motivated enough to earn it the old-fashioned way, right?
It's always more gratifying to insist that someone else held you down than to admit that you don't have the gumption to take care of yourself.
When you guys talk about selfishness and greed, you're talking about people who want to take money from those who are 'richer' than they are, just because they aren't motivated enough to earn it the old-fashioned way, right?
So is it your contention that anyone can be "rich" if they want to, and that all poor people are poor because they are shiftless, and become they choose poverty?
With all this 'conspiracy' chatter, I'll bet you're also a 'Truther', aren't you?
Oh don't bring that up or I'll have to explain again how to demolish a building.
Myste: So is it your contention that anyone can be "rich" if they want to, and that all poor people are poor because they are shiftless, and become they choose poverty?"
Not exactly. Most (not all) people who are "poor" (your word, not mine) are in that situation based on their own actions or inactions, as opposed to something someone else (the 'rich'?) did to them that is beyond their control.
For those people to expect a free ride, and to expect that free ride to be paid for by (in their eyes) the 'rich', are greedy and selfish. Much more so than those who work hard and earn much.
I do not believe that all people can be 'rich', but that most people who expect a free ride are capable of being self-sufficient, i.e. earning a living.
Don't look now, but the Bilderbergers are meeting again... !
Not exactly. Most (not all) people who are "poor" (your word, not mine) are in that situation based on their own actions or inactions, as opposed to something someone else (the 'rich'?) did to them that is beyond their control.
Most of the poor are in that situation because they do not know how not to be in that situation, as are most people in any adverse circumstance. If America has fair labor practices and laws and a good safety net, then people will be much happier. If people work 16 hours per day and earn 2.00 per hour, they will be miserable. If the rich want the miserable scenario for the poor, or try to make it happen, then they are to blame. If they do not want it and resist it (or even ignore it), then they are not to blame.
For those people to expect a free ride, and to expect that free ride to be paid for by (in their eyes) the 'rich', are greedy and selfish. Much more so than those who work hard and earn much.
Many poor people work hard and earn little. When you say “a free ride,” you are mixing the concept of earning low wages with the concept of receiving welfare and food stamps instead of working. Both are issues to consider, but not in the same sentence. They are completely different and unrelated questions. There are virtuous people in both groups.
I do not believe that all people can be 'rich', but that most people who expect a free ride are capable of being self-sufficient, i.e. earning a living.
That is a fine faith to have. Would you still have this faith if the minimum wage were removed?
They have a deep hatred for all the socialists waste the taxpayers money by living off the government. They see those people as losers that can't make their way in the market of free enterprise
Can't say that doesn't reflect some of my beliefs, only hate is a strong term.
There are legit government functions, I wouldn't want to see those removed. But some functions of government are either a luxury we can't afford or totally an affront to tax payers. I'd like to see those departments defunded to nonexistence or eliminated all together. As for those socialist sopping up tax money who do not have jobs and have no physical problems preventing them from getting one, I would like to motivate them to get jobs by removing the subsidy.
That is a fine faith to have. Would you still have this faith if the minimum wage were removed?
The minimum wage is a total sham. Less than 3% of Americans make minimum wage. The rest of working Americans almost universally make more. Much more in fact. Those that do make minimum wage, the majority are teenagers who should be making entry level wages. Those that are grown ass adults who have minimum wages jobs have frankly fucked up their lives somehow to be past 25 and making so low pay. How on Earth could you be over 30 and have so little job skills? I know illegal immigrants who jump the boarder, can't even speak English and hardly have a work record who make more, much more in fact, than minimum wage. If you can't compete with that you deserve to loose.
Weaseldog, you're so jaded man, sometimes you crack me up :-)
I'm with Free on this one. Minimum wage jobs are usually 'starter' jobs, retiree jobs, or jobs for those who want a little part-time income. Even the assistant night 'manager' at McDonald's earns more than minimum wage.
If you want to blow off your responsibilities, smoke pot during your high school years instead of studying, drink yourself stupid every night instead of getting a higher education . . . you deserve what you get and don't expect me to bail your lame ass out.
On the other hand, we don't hire illegals, but we have many employees who have come here from Latin America and are excellent workers. They earn 2 to 3 times minimum wage. Some of these people have learned English, obtained citizenship, and some have gone to community college and improved their position in life even further.
America is still the land of opportunity but it seems like foreigners recognize this more than some Americans do.
The minimum wage is a total sham. Less than 3% of Americans make minimum wage.
The minimum wage is the base line low paying jobs compete with. Were it not for the minimum wage, people would be working for 2.00 per hour, and today's minimum wage would be called "good pay."
Free0352: "If you can't compete with that [the minimum wage] you deserve to loose."
Spoken like a true ward of the corporate-state.
John
People on average make many magnitudes more than minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are for children. If you are not a kid and you're making that an hour, you might want to quit blaming others and take a very hard look at your life choices.
And as for my ward of the state status, I'd like to see Jefferson make it for 1 hour with my Soldiers here in Kansas, let alone in Afghanistan. I'd like to see him try.
Free0352: "I'd like to see Jefferson make it for 1 hour with my Soldiers here in Kansas, let alone in Afghanistan. I'd like to see him try."
I don't like Kansas. As far as Afghanistan, your soldiers shouldn't be there.
When you and your soldiers get off the government dole and make it in the private sector, let's have this conversation again. Until then, you're only "talking the talk"...
"Seriously, if you can't beat out a guy who grew up searching for food in a garbage dump, who hiring is a criminal act, and who can't read you suck at life."
Seriously, if you can't make a living without depending upon the corporate-state to finance your total life (e.g., healthcare, housing, education benefits, early retirement pension, etc., etc.), than you're living the life...of a majority of Americans today.
Seriously!
I don't like Kansas. As far as Afghanistan, your soldiers shouldn't be there.
Anytime you want to find out what real work is, feel free to stop by here in fly-over country ;)
Free0352: "Anytime you want to find out what real work is, feel free to stop by here in fly-over country ;)"
Nice touch! assume that's video of your soldiers...
Sure, I have no doubt your boys work hard. "Busy-work" can be exhausting. How many latrines did you guys dig today? ;-)
None deep enough to contain your bullshit ;)
And they are my Soldiers the way my kids are MY kids.
So you think that capitalism is where the government takes money out of my pocket and pays you to spend the day marching up and down the square?
Get a clue.
Capitalism is about profits. If you get paid to work hard at make work projects, you're a socialist.
If you earn your boss more money than he pays you, then you're a good capitalist.
How profitable was your division this quarter? How many $millions did you make over costs? Were you able to bill your customers for a value, above and beyond your wages?
In capitalism, how hard you work is not a factor. What matters is how much you cost, and how much of a $$$ return you provide on that money. That's all capitalism cares about.
That's right. And capitalist malls hire rent-a-cops, capitalist banks hire security guards and armored cars, municipalities and states hire police officers, and the U.S. Government hires federal agents and Soldiers for the exact same reason. See without us in the military, you all die or become someone's bitch. And no one makes money dead or in slavery. Life is one hell of an investment.
Free0352: "...capitalist malls hire rent-a-cops, capitalist banks hire security guards and armored cars, municipalities and states hire police officers, and the U.S. Government hires federal agents and Soldiers for the exact same reason." [bold emphasis my own]
Yes, exactly! You're finally catching on! Malls, banks, etc., etc., hire rent-a-cops for the exact same reason -- TO PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENT!! You're just doing it on a much grander scale! You're the rent-a-cop for the multinational banking and Fortune 500 corporate structure. End of story.
"...without us in the military, you all die or become someone's bitch."
Oh, so that explains why The U.S. spends approximately 41% of the world's total military expenditures. It it to protect "us"! Is it the same "us" who have been ravaged by the banking cartel and who are facing one foreclosure out of every 775 households (and is expected to rise, because of them)? Is it to protect "us" so we can achieve a national poverty rate that's at its highest rate since 1993? Is it to protect "us" so a national surveillance apparatus can be put in place to listen to my phone calls, read my e-mails, and track my whereabouts? And certainly not last, is it to protect "us" from needed jobs with secure futures and retirement pensions? (Which, by the way, I'm paying for the one you'll receive -- but I won't.) Gee, with protection like yours, I really feel comfy and secure all of a sudden.
No, if anybody's "somebody's bitch", it's you and your soldiers. You're the "rent-a-cop" extraordinaire to the corporate-state. Period.
The cold cruel monstrosities of state central planning:
Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.
The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
It takes cruel men to inflict cruelty on others. This is the inevitable result from the destruction of democracy.
F&B,
Gee, Dubya, you use the term "capitalism" like it's a dirty word.
Nonsense. You're not paying attention, or you deliberatley ignore "unregulated" as the modifier.
The products of unregulated capitalism, corporatism and corporatocracy, are the dirty adversaries of democracy.
Capitalism can, and does, contibute to a healthy society, as long as it's power brokers are not corrupt, or above the rule of law and basic fairness.
So, every poor person is poor by choice? Or at least should be treated as such?
And wealthy folks are immmune to greed?
Fred,
Good for you. Dictatorships are bad, and democracy is the best alternative.
Tell us, are Social Security and Medicare the "cold cruel monstrosities of state central planning"?
Is yours a black and white view of the world limited to a choice between non-democratic Republican corporatism, and non-democratic communism?
That would suck.
Rent a Cops are capitalist construct and the burden of the cost is placed on the corporation that needs the protection.
When Marines are sent to protect a refinery or pipeline for a foreign corporation in a foreign country, they are practicing socialism. The taxpayer is providing the socialist welfare subsidy funds, so that they don't have to expense their own protection.
If we were a truly capitalist nation, the person or the corporation would have to pay for their own protection. There would be no socialist public protection.
And as a further evidence of our socialist, too big to fail corporate / gov structure, we have an over sized over active military to dispose of product so that the defense industry can keep growing, using growing amounts of tax dollars. In 2013, it's going to be at $trillion per annum.
This government welfare program for the defense industry drives up the cost of goods and labor, producing a hardship burden for corporations that have to compete in the marketplace, rather than enjoy ever increasing no-bid cost+ government welfare contracts.
Ever increasing defense spending is making us more and more like the old USSR everyday. As we divert more resource to the government, private industries will be increasingly unable to produce product that the people can afford. So the government will have to take them over and provide funding to keep up the production.
RedStateFre says, "This is the inevitable result from the destruction of democracy."
Is that why we're losing our democracy in the USA? Is that what our government wants for us?
PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENT!! You're just doing it on a much grander scale!
Yes, and that investment is the United States. I don't have a problem with that. You'd have to be pretty delusional to view this as simply an attack on corporate assets.
Oh, so that explains why The U.S. spends approximately 41% of the world's total military expenditures
Yes, it does. We're the third largest country in the world, and the richest. Playing world police is our role, as we're the only nation that can do it. Back when no one did, we had two world wars. In a nuclear age, that is suicide. Our job is to fight little wars to prevent large ones.
Is it the same "us" who have been ravaged by the banking cartel and who are facing one foreclosure out of every 775 households (and is expected to rise, because of them)?
The body who is supposed to regulate banks is the Securities & Exchange Commission. If you have a problem with the job they are doing, take it up with them. As for DOD's role, people seem to be happy with us.
Is it to protect "us" so a national surveillance apparatus can be put in place to listen to my phone calls, read my e-mails, and track my whereabouts?
That is the job of the National Security Administration, not the DOD. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you take it up with them- not U.S. Military members.
And certainly not last, is it to protect "us" from needed jobs with secure futures and retirement pensions?
Most jobs are created by small business, I suggest you ask them why they aren't hiring more. You may not however, like the answers some give you.
Which, by the way, I'm paying for the one you'll receive -- but I won't.
If you are interested in gaining a military pension- which amounts to free insurance for life and about 4000 a month, you can get one. All it takes is 20 years of military service or crippling wounds suffered in combat or training. You also will get paid about 1200 a month starting pay, a 1200 dollar housing subsidy and free insurance. In exchange you will do what has been consistently rated as the most stressful job in America. We obviously don't do it for the pay- we do it so people can say things like-
Gee, with protection like yours, I really feel comfy and secure all of a sudden
-and while you intended that to be sarcasm you should. You have that luxury. Fact is the world is a very, very dangerous place and because my Soldiers along with hundreds of thousands of others have done our jobs so well you can go to sleep at night without worrying your pretty, little head. People who will not kill will always be subject to those who can. That's why America keeps us around. Americans understand that fact.
When Marines are sent to protect a refinery or pipeline for a foreign corporation in a foreign country, they are practicing socialism.
No. I think you need to look up the definition of socialism. When a persons whose home has been broken into calls the police that is not socialism any more than when American interests over seas call for help from the military.
If you want a great example of socialism, you can see it in action.
Socialism has flaws. Not as destructive as communism, fascism and unregulated corporatism, but it has been twisted into the "socialize loss, privatize gain" game for the elites.
We have the best guidline for socialism in our Constitution, if we'd only follow the meaning of "general welfare" instead of "corporate welfare" and best deal for the rich.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but it has been twisted into the "socialize loss, privatize gain" game for the elites.
I would argue that is not a true statement, because where ever we have the brand of socialism you advocate Dave- the western European countries come to mind as examples of your brand of socialism- you have that exact problem 100% of the time.
Socialist economic systems universally produce a privatization of success and socialization of failure... and that's a best case scenario. The worst case is communism and its demonstrated failure and resulting body count.
Socialism's predictable shortcomings lead to increased activism on the part of government to correct a socialist system's inherent failures; creating at the very least a downward economic spiral (see Western Europe and the mess they are in) or a totalitarian response (see communist counties.)
...Or a perversion of the two (China) where government elites become the financial elites...
At best with a socialist economic policy you end up broke and at worse you end up dead. This is because you disregard moral hazard in socialism.
As for governmental power, don't confuse "can" with "should," as our friends in the EU are finding out.
Or as Maggie Thatcher put it best
The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money.
Free0352: "Yes, and that investment is the United States. I don't have a problem with that."
Sure it is. [sarcasm] If that were true, which it obviously is not, I wouldn't have a problem with it either. The U.S. military, as it did during the Vietnam era, is only a tool of corporate interests. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam. None of these countries are, or were, a threat to the American people. They're (or were) excellent opportunities for banking and/or corporate revenue streams. Eisenhower said it best on the eve of his departure from office. I won't bother repeating it, because I know you know his words.
"You'd have to be pretty delusional to view this as simply an attack on corporate assets."
You'd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see this as just another "Reichstag fire". One thing the American people, like you, are wonderful at doing is falling for false flags. (By the way, that's why corporations spend billions upon billions of dollars on advertising each year. It works.)
"Playing world police is our role..."
A role that's been written and choreographed by big money interests, for big money interests.
"Our job is to fight little wars to prevent large ones."
Your job, as defined by who -- the international banking and corporate lobby?
So, if another "large one" occurs in the next few years, can we deduce that fighting the little ones didn't work? Or, really wasn't designed to?
"That is the job of the National Security Administration, not the DOD. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you take it up with them- not U.S. Military members."
I'm not "taking it up" with military members, just purely expressing my displeasure and objection with the U.S. Military being a tool of big money (i.e., "corporate") interests.
Your suggestion that the military and intelligence apparatuses are totally distinct and separate is absolutely ludicrous. When the head of the CIA switches titles and decides to camp out at the Pentagon, and his replacement is a four-star general most recently serving as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that there's not much differentiation between the two "separate" roles.
Given that the NSA is always directed by at least a lieutenant general or a vice admiral, and was formerly known as the Armed Forces Security Agency which reported directly to DoD, does this mean your reply was totally bullshit or just purely naivety on your part?
TO BE CONTINUED...
Free0352: "If you are interested in gaining a military pension..."
I'm not, only interested in pointing out your abject hypocrisy when you're critical of other government agencies costing and draining your pocketbook.
Besides, I do have my principals, which obviously you do not.
"We obviously don't do it for the pay..."
I know, you do it for the guaranteed pension and healthcare benefits (for life) -- something you're well aware can't be found in the private sector. Yet, which has been my point all along but you keep evading or deflecting it, you keep railing against those who seek the same.
"That's why America keeps us around."
No, you're kept around out of fear -- a false and created fear. America's "leadership" always instills fear. It's really a very simple process. Instilling fear allows control. It works on a micro-level (one-on-one relationships) and it works on societal levels. The tragedy on 9/11 was a prime example. It was grand and horrendous enough to allow our corporate-state to create almost unlimited and unquestioning control over its citizens. People have willingly given up their most sacred and prized Constitutional rights in the name of "security". Well, almost all Americans. There are exceptions -- like me.
Free0352: "Or as Maggie Thatcher put it best..."
No, more appropriate given the current scenario, Herbert Hoover said it better...
The only problem with capitalism is the capitalists.
Mahatma Gandhi made a somewhat analogous observation regarding Christians.
Free,
I'm a firm believer that no business is too big to fail. Failure is a good thing. It means a competitive system is working.
You are correct on the surface. Failures like the crash of ’29 and ’08 were not good things. They were the result of unregulated capitalism, which fails every time.
You continue, ”Then we don't have a market economy, we have a mixed one and when you privatize success and socialize failure you have a recipe for disaster.”
I agreed. “Socialism has flaws. Not as destructive as communism, fascism and unregulated corporatism, but it has been twisted into the "socialize loss, privatize gain" game for the elites.”
Then you disagreed: I would argue that is not a true statement, because where ever we have the brand of socialism you advocate Dave
I was not alluding to my “brand” of socialism. I was referring to the exact same “too big to fail” and rigged "socialize loss, privatize gain" game for the elites.
Socialist economic systems universally produce a privatization of success and socialization of failure... and that's a best case scenario.
No, the best case scenario is government stimulated jobs programs, safety nets, and a public health service benefiting millions of Americans. And that is not even strictly a socialist economic system.
And this you claim contains more moral hazard than unregulated capitalism?
The worst case is communism and its demonstrated failure and resulting body count.
The worst cases are unregulated capitalism, communism and fascism dominated by a dictatorship of a powerful elite, not democratic socialism.
The role of democracy, or lack thereof, is the crucial element.
The problems with unregulated capitalism are everyone but the elites run out of money and democracy is suppressed.
Free says, "No. I think you need to look up the definition of socialism. When a persons whose home has been broken into calls the police that is not socialism any more than when American interests over seas call for help from the military."
Yes I agree that phone calls are not socialism.
But you're saying that when a government taxes the people to redistribute wealth and provide services, it is not socialism. You're saying that this is capitalism.
In Afghanistan, my tax dollars are funding Marine protection for Dutch and Kuwaiti oil interests in the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. So taking money from labors and using it fund the interests of foreign corporations is what you call Capitalism.
I suppose also the use of my tax dollars us for the US Marines, to protect the Afghanistan heroin industry from the Taliban is also an example of you view of capitalism?
Previously you were arguing that the redistribution of tax dollars was communism or socialism, now you don't agree. How did you come to change your view? Or is it capitalism, if I'm taxed and the money is given to wealthy foreigners who create jobs in Pakistan? But if my money goes to pay unemployment claims in the USA, then that's evil communism?
free0352 said... "Or as Maggie Thatcher put it best
The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money."
Yeah, our continually expanding wars to prevent wars is going to cost us over a $trillion next year, and it's growing exponentially.
You've argued that everyone should sign up and help spread war and live off the government. If we all did that, who be left to work and do productive things, to fund your constant expansion of war and human slaughter? The Saudi Princes, getting wealthier and wealthier from your efforts aren't going to fund you. If it weren't for capitalism, and the taking of money out of my pockets to pay you, your hard work in protecting foreign interests wouldn't be possible.
You're taking money from me, to live on, and lecturing me about the evils of living on a government paycheck, extolling capitalism, while bragging about living off my labor... You're a strange bird.
"Socialist economic systems universally produce a privatization of success and socialization of failure... and that's a best case scenario. The worst case is communism and its demonstrated failure and resulting body count. "
Three million dead Iraqis since 1990.
Thanks to Socialism in the US Gov, and in part to your efforts. And I'm sure you're proud of it. So perhaps the body counts don't mean so much.
WWI and WWII were wars of capitalism. They both grew out of the same kind of banking policies that is devastating Europe now, and will lead to another war.
How many died in those wars? Were they worth it, to keep banking profits up?
But you're saying that when a government taxes the people to redistribute wealth and provide services,
some services. As I must remind you all constantly, I'm not an anarchist. Some government services are totally legitimate. Roads, courts, defense, those are legitimate. I actually am a moderate. I believe in a government role in daily life that is moderate; not non-existent, or as as it seems you guys would want which is drastic. I think your position demonstrates your radicalism.
Yeah, our continually expanding wars to prevent wars is going to cost us over a $trillion next year
Please compare and contrast the cost benefit ratio between the cost of one trillion vs a nuclear conflict. War is about loosing least. Clearly One Trillion is least.
Three million dead Iraqis since 1990.
Like to see the source for that figure. It's grossly inflated. However, surely many died. Thats sad for those who were not fighting us, and I try to limit that number what ever it is as much as possible. I've seen American Soldiers die to save many Iraqi citizens. But in the end, I'd trade every Iraqi for one American just as I'd have traded every Japanese for one American life in 1945. I'm an American first, and an Iraqi somewhere way, way down the scale. My question is why aren't you?
You've argued that everyone should sign up and help spread war and live off the government.
I think we should defend our interests from thugs and killers. Or are you suggesting Saddam Hussein wasn't a thug and a killer?
WWI and WWII were wars of capitalism.
Japan was a military dictatorship who attacked several American Islands first. Not much Capitalism there, just a totalitarian will to power. As for National Socialist Germany, they declared war on us. I suppose you'd have stopped all those death camps in Poland by holding hands, smoking dope, and singing hootnanny songs while dropping acid. However that would have been an abject failure.
Truth is if you want security and free trade and human rights you have to use force to keep those things. Otherwise people who don't have the luck as you've had to grow up in a ultra safe, ultra secure, economic powerhouse like you will shoot you in the face and take all you have.
I stop that guy. Your welcome.
Truth is if you want security and free trade and human rights you have to use force to keep those things. Otherwise people who don't have the luck as you've had to grow up in a ultra safe, ultra secure, economic powerhouse like you will shoot you in the face and take all you have.
I stop that guy. Your welcome.
I would like to take this opportunity to personally extend my gratitude to Free for stopping Saddam Hussein from taking my house away from me. Phew! That was close. Thank you Free. I will leave it to Free to describe precisely how he saved me.
So for the new reader lets review the positions of our dear liberal friends.
1: I'm a hypocrite for not being either a total anarchist or a statist. Anything in the middle is a hypocrite.
2: 9-11 was an inside job.
3: US bankers caused WWII and WWI.
4: Republicans don't have a difference of opinion, they are part of a vast right wing conspiracy to steal the worlds wealth through never ending wars they gin up to cover up them stealing.
5: The military is not necessary, if we just loved one another the criminals and dictators of the world would stop, become peace loving hippies and sing koom bi ya with us in harmony. The United States (and more specifically it's banks) are responsible for world violence, and are the root of the problem of world conflict.
That's funny, I've read this before. Now where could that be? Oh yeah, communist literature. Hmmm I wonder why that is ;)
Now dear reader, if you are so inclined please choose. You have I, a Libertarian who believes our government has a few core responsibilities such as to provide for the defense of American's citizens and property. To protect the natural environment. To settle disputes between it's states and citizens, and most importantly defend the rights of Americans as outlined in the bill of rights. Beyond that, pretty much the job of government is to leave people alone to pursue their own destiny.
Then we have Okijim, Weasel, and Jefferson Guardian who charmingly see the United States (and it's banks) as the root of the worlds wars, the successful as thieves, the US military as a criminal organization, and that THEY and their kind know best how you should run your life.
Thank you Free. I will leave it to Free to describe precisely how he saved me.
Clearly I had A LOT of help. In fact, I was a cog in a wheel. The wheel saved you, but I do take personal responsibility for the security of the United States. All of us do. Its a very personal commitment.
As for how, here's a great example
here.
Okijim, Weasel, and Jefferson Guardian,
Would one of you like to correct this? Here is how I see it:
Free Says: 1: I'm a hypocrite for not being either a total anarchist or a statist. Anything in the middle is a hypocrite.
That is not one of Free’s hypocrisies. He pretends to be a legal authority (and even beyond professionals), a practitioner of the rules of critical thinking, a political authority beyond that of his blogging peers (and even beyond professionals), an economic authority beyond that of his blogging peers (and even beyond professionals): all hypocrisy, trying to pretend to be an authority where he is not. However, he does not have to be an anarchist or a statist in order to not be a hypocrite. Please correct.
Free Says: 2: 9-11 was an inside job.
Were this true, we could not know. We could only evaluate rumors and finish the theory with our faith. Since the tale is ostensibly absurd, the burden of proof is upon us. As a fact, the claim is absurd. Please concede.
Free Says: 3: US bankers caused WWII and WWI.
I missed the discussion about this, but it is so ridiculous on the surface I have little interest. Did someone actually claim this? Please confirm.
Free Says: 4: Republicans don't have a difference of opinion, they are part of a vast right wing conspiracy to steal the worlds wealth through never ending wars they gin up to cover up them stealing.
The GOP is organized, but paid for by certain groups who are not banding together to steal, but to be represented in myriad ways. I think everyone knows this. I could find concessions to this if I had the interest to poor over past commentary, but I simply do not have that much. I find the claim that is all about stealing resources to be simplistic. Please persuade.
Free Says: 5: The military is not necessary, if we just loved one another the criminals and dictators of the world would stop, become peace loving hippies and sing koom bi ya with us in harmony. The United States (and more specifically it's banks) are responsible for world violence, and are the root of the problem of world conflict.
Obviously a straw man claim on the part of Free. Please confirm.
Thank you Free. I will leave it to Free to describe precisely how he saved me.
Clearly I had A LOT of help.
For everyone who missed it, Free had a lot of help in stopping Saddam from taking my home. He did not do it all by himself. I think it is even possible that if Free did not exist, Saddam would have still failed in his attempt to take my home, although Free did not imply that.
Free, at the next meeting you hold, please thank your assistants who helped you save me
Free says, "Please compare and contrast the cost benefit ratio between the cost of one trillion vs a nuclear conflict. War is about loosing least. Clearly One Trillion is least."
So if we cover the earth in conventional war, we'll save the cost of having to destroy it with nuclear weapons?
Is that what you're saying, it's cheaper to use conventional forces to destroy the Earth. If we used our nukes, it cost more?
And of course, if we used nukes in Iraq, our Kuwaiti friends wouldn't be able to get richer selling Iraqi oil...
Free says "Like to see the source for that figure. It's grossly inflated. However, surely many died. Thats sad for those who were not fighting us, and I try to limit that number what ever it is as much as possible. I've seen American Soldiers die to save many Iraqi citizens. But in the end, I'd trade every Iraqi for one American just as I'd have traded every Japanese for one American life in 1945. I'm an American first, and an Iraqi somewhere way, way down the scale. My question is why aren't you?"
Madelaine Albreicht admitted that one million Iraqi children died from the sanctions during the Clinton Administration, saying, "It was worth it."
By 2005, we had killed over a million more Iraqis.
And of course you'd kill more Iraqis to help our allies in the Muslim Royal Families keep control of Iraqi Oil. They stand to make almost a $trillion on it.
In Capitalism, only money has value. $Trillion in profits makes everything done, moral. The many hundreds of American lives ruined and the millions of Iraqi dead, is worth it, because our Muslim friends are making huge profits.
In capitalism, that's how you measure right and wrong. Did someone earn monetary profits? If they did, then you did the right thing.
America is being bankrupted by the wars and it's worth it, because our Muslim allies are making a lot of money from it.
And I'm sure you'll be proud to sign up for the next war, so our Muslim friends can make even more money.
Free says, "I think we should defend our interests from thugs and killers. Or are you suggesting Saddam Hussein wasn't a thug and a killer?"
He was a piker. He only killed ten thousand Kurds. We killed three million Iraqis.
His torture room and rape rooms were embarrassingly small. We vastly expanded them.
He was small potatoes. We showed him how real Americans can slaughter and torture and proved to the world how bad ass we are at creating human suffering.
You should be proud. You've dedicated your life to spreading death, horror and human suffering. No Iraqi can equal men like you.
That's why we'll continue to win so long as we can keep exponentially increasing the money we spend on war. From a pure slaughter and horror standpoint, no nation can compete or stand in our way.
We're going to bring the world, the next world war. It'll be men like you, leading the charge.
Free says, "Japan was a military dictatorship who attacked several American Islands first. Not much Capitalism there, just a totalitarian will to power. As for National Socialist Germany, they declared war on us. I suppose you'd have stopped all those death camps in Poland by holding hands, smoking dope, and singing hootnanny songs while dropping acid. However that would have been an abject failure."
First, Japan didn't start the war, second, the USA and Britain were economically raping Japan. It was all about the money.
It's always about the money. That's what war is all about. The rest is just bullshit that rich men tell the fools, so they'll sign up to go get their brains blown out, in a country they'd never heard of before.
Free, I love your straw man arguments and other shit you make up.
Like this one...
"3: US bankers caused WWII and WWI."
How did you decide that piece of BS?
Granted, US Banks were loaning the Nazi's money, but so were banks all over Europe. The Nazi's were backing big industry and for a time, were becoming an economic powerhouse.
Look it up. This information is hidden in books. They hide the books in libraries and bookstores.
John, according to President George Bush in one of his State of the Union Speeches, Saddam Hussien had 20 nuclear tipped, intercontinental ballistics missiles aimed at major US Cities...
Free I'm sure, personally captured each of these missile silos before they could be launched and destroy your home.
As we knew Saddam had a highly trained military force and advanced weaponry. If we had not invaded, we would've used his vast fleet of destroyers, aircraft, missiles and nuclear submarines to invade the USA, where we sit helpless, open to attack.
Considering the tremendous threat that Saddam posed to the USA, historians have never understood why his nation was so easy to invade or where all of these nuclear weapons vanished to, while we were lighting up school buses full of refugees trying to escape the war. And we'll never know why he didn't use his nuclear weapons... Any other tyrant would've. Maybe he wasn't evil enough to give us a good fight?
Free,
I give you credit for arguing regularly with these liberal nanny state loons.
For a good chuckle, read today's NYTimes Maureen Dowd column "Dreaming of a Superhero". Maureen no longer gets a tingle up her leg when the poorly vetted community organizer gives a speech.
I got a good laugh in Dowds article with this part:
On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.”
Thanks Bill and Maureen. At least some Democrats acknowledge what a joke it was to elect Obama in 2008.
We will get a good laugh on Tuesday when the recall vote fails and the people of Wisconsin vote for fiscal responsibility. I wonder what the top reasons the liberal loons will have when Walker wins. Maybe okjimm from Wisconsin will give us his analysis. okjimm is there anyway we will be able to blame it on Bush if Tom Barrett loses?
Free, at the next meeting you hold, please thank your assistants who helped you save me
John,
I can just put it out on facebook if that's cool, most of my friends on it are current or former military.
I know we can't all be philosopher kings and defeat totalitarian dictatorships single handed like you can, so we instead use teamwork. Teams are funny, every member must take his job personally and do their individual part. I'm proud to do my part.
Weasel,
Madelaine Albreicht admitted that one million Iraqi children died from the sanctions during the Clinton Administration,
You would think Saddam had a hand in that, but then you couldn't blame America first. As for ownership of Iraqi oil, I would refer you to the Iraqi Ministry Of Oil, who sells Iraqi oil at the price they set. A lot more of those oil profits are getting to Iraqi citizens these days. Certainly more than the good old days when they went to the Hussein family.
So if we cover the earth in conventional war, we'll save the cost of having to destroy it with nuclear weapons?
Nah. I think at this point the concerns are Syria, Iran and possibly Pakistan. We got the rest covered. We handled Europe and Asia during WWII, and knocked out the Soviet block during the cold war. South America is pretty stable except for Chavez, and it looks like cancer will do that work for us. It's an on-going process. However for the last 67 years it's gone relatively smooth.
First, Japan didn't start the war
Really? Who knew? I'd just love you to source this. Try giving a link this time. Of course be prepared for me to counter your source with every single main stream history book ever written. Good luck.
Free I'm sure, personally captured each of these missile silos before they could be launched and destroy your home.
No, but once for example I participated in a raid on an Al'Queda training camp in Afghanistan in 2001 where we recovered diagrams of elementary schools in Wisconsin among other places and plans to use chlorine gas to kill the students. That of course is one example. We put the kabash on that plan, but later Al'Queda managed to do nearly that same thing during the Beslan school massacre in Russia.
Considering the tremendous threat that Saddam posed to the USA, historians have never understood why his nation was so easy to invade or where all of these nuclear weapons vanished to
Last I checked one of the reasons we invaded Iraq wasn't because Iraq possessed nuclear weapons but because we didn't want him to ever get them.
Mission accomplished, Saddam Hussein will never get nukes. Next stop Iran.
How did you decide that piece of BS?
Actually I'm pretty sure it's your piece of BS. You were the one that suggested Capitalism was a motivator for the Japanese to bomb our ships at Pearl Harbor. I didn't make this shit up, you did. I'm not defending it, it's your contention. I know that doesn't jibe with history so perhaps you could explain this cockamamie theory a little better. Last time I cracked a history book Japan bombed Pear Harbor as a means to neutralize US Naval power in the Pacific to pave the way for them to attack more territory in the South Pacific (with an end for them in Australia) without serious opposition. You apparently have some secret knowledge the rest of the planet doesn't have.
Oh I remember, Haliburton did it. Right.
I give you credit for arguing regularly with these liberal nanny state loons.
This isn't argument, this is me laughing at the lunatic leftist fringe. I like to talk with more sensible democrats on other blogs, and I often link to these precious little conversations when I need to demonstrate to Democrats their party has been infiltrated by a bunch of socialist wack-jobs.
I said, "First, Japan didn't start the war"
Free said, "Really? Who knew? I'd just love you to source this. Try giving a link this time. Of course be prepared for me to counter your source with every single main stream history book ever written. Good luck."
You'll have to read one first. That's not gonna happen. So I'm not worried.
But sure, go ahead and tell me about how the Japanese started World War II.
It is true that they were at war with China. But that wasn't considered then, or now to be a world war.
Or perhaps you'll argue that the USA has already begun WWIII with it's undeclared hostilities against Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and Syria?
Free, ah dude, I gave you too much credit.
You argued that Japan started World War II. I thought you were referring to a conflict, that you probably never heard of.
You've explained you and every historian in the world knows that World War II was started, when Japanese attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor.
You said, "Actually I'm pretty sure it's your piece of BS. You were the one that suggested Capitalism was a motivator for the Japanese to bomb our ships at Pearl Harbor. I didn't make this shit up, you did. I'm not defending it, it's your contention. I know that doesn't jibe with history so perhaps you could explain this cockamamie theory a little better. Last time I cracked a history book Japan bombed Pear Harbor as a means to neutralize US Naval power in the Pacific to pave the way for them to attack more territory in the South Pacific (with an end for them in Australia) without serious opposition. You apparently have some secret knowledge the rest of the planet doesn't have."
I do have some secret knowledge.
In several history books here in my house, it's explained that World War II began when Germany invaded Poland On September 1, 1939.
But I suppose that's in the liberal history books.
I'll accept that the Republican History books say that, World War II started when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.
Do the Republican History Books say anything about American and Japanese relations before 1941? Or is all of that kept out of the books you're allowed to read?
Free says, "Japan bombed Pear Harbor as a means to neutralize US Naval power in the Pacific"
Absolutely correct. We were unofficially allied with China and had imposed an embargo on Japan.
This was putting a strain the
Japanese war against China.
An embargo is officially considered an act of war. While Japan and China were going at it, we cut in.
At the time though, our nation was divided. Half the population felt we should support the Axis and half felt we should support the Allies. When we allowed Japan to hit Pearl Harbor, it polarized the nation and put us solidly on the Allied side.
Crack your books. Read all about it.
Free, earlier you were using the Nazi argument that you have to start wars to prevent wars. Now you're saying that Germany didn't start WWII, and that only ignorant liberals think they did.
Is their an aspect of your belief system that you haven't shared with us?
In several history books here in my house, it's explained that World War II began when Germany invaded Poland On September 1, 1939
Yes. The official start for EUROPE. The United States came into the war on December 7th 1941. We fought Germany when the next day, Hitler declared war on the United States.
This was putting a strain the
Japanese war against China
Wow, we opposed the Rape Of Nanking.
What jerks we were.
Free, earlier you were using the Nazi argument that you have to start wars to prevent wars
Last I checked Hitler had the SS attack several German towns on the Polish boarder, and the German justification for war was that it was shooting back. That aside, the main reason Hitler was such a douche, was spelled out in his own book (If you feel like cracking a book) where he outlined how it was the mission of the Aryan race to dominate Europe for the express purpose of enslaving the Slavic people and wiping out Jews. Everything Hitler did circles back to that goal.
I'm half Cuban/Puero Rican and Czech. In a way I should thank Hitler. My father's family came to the US in 1938 when Chamberlain pretty much handed Hitler the Sudetenland. My grandfather later volunteered for the Navy the same day Germany declared war on the US. My great grandfather said he had a score to settle with the Nazis for burning the family bakery to the ground for hiring Jews.
these liberal nanny state loons.
Now there’s a good laugh.
Too bad the Red State authoritarian personality cannot see the irony of its “nanny state” whine. Fred never did accept, or even acknowledge, the reality of the “Red State Socialism” I told him about. I’d bet he overlooks this embarrassment again. Same deal with Free. Whenever we show evidence that conflicts with their Right Wing ideology, they need to either make crap up, or abandon the topic for further distractions.
We keep waiting to see those death panels, the complete government takeover of health care, and those “nukular” aluminum tubes they told us about.
At least some Democrats acknowledge what a joke it was to elect Obama in 2008.
No, they did not. This is an example of how they make crap up.
We all know Willie is thinking Obama must lose so his wife can step in after the next Republican debacle, and there is no doubt that will happen again. The “usual suspects”, Liberals, unions, regulations on Big Money, and taxes on the wealthy will be blamed, and the jobless shall multiply as fast as the stacks of cash appear for the top tier.
I wonder if the keen insight of the Rightist can even see Dowd’s true assessment of Obama. Not likely. It doesn’t fit their indoctrinated judgment, “As president, Obama has never felt the need to explain or sell his signature pieces of legislation — the stimulus and health care bills — or stanch the flow of false information from the other side.”
Take that, you silly Marxist Kenyan Muslim Commie America-hater.
I wonder what the top reasons the liberal loons will have when Walker wins
What’s to wonder about? Follow the money. The real loons, duped by radical Right Propaganda machinery, and blinded by their Mammonite worship of wealth, don’t see the corrupting influence of Big Money on our elections and government.
There’s no “credit for arguing regularly” when that side cannot produce one death panel or nukular aluminum tube. Calling us loons, or commies, only shows they argue like fascists.
So I wonder what Fred meant by “Partcipating on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rant blog when he isn't deleting posts he doesn't agree with”. If by “participating” he means ignoring little questions like, Tell us, are Social Security and Medicare the "cold cruel monstrosities of state central planning"?
Nope. No claification whatsoever.
Wonder why that’s such a tough question... Let’s assume he would say yes.
And after “arguing” that bad Communist dictators killing people is somehow the same thing as liberalism, I asked:
Is yours a black and white view of the world limited to a choice between non-democratic Republican corporatism, and non-democratic communism?
Let’s assume again he would say yes, since they run away from their BS when confronted. As we all know, I never delete a disagreeing position. Look at ‘em all. I only delete trollish and foul behavior. I promise not to delete any response to these questions. I’d especially like to see a reaction to the fact of red state socialism. I won’t hold my breath. Nanny’s are used to the distracting behavior of crybabies.
I have a suggestion. How about all Red State crybaby parasites who suck up more federal dollars than they contribute go away? Secede from our Union, please. Or leave the US if you hate your fellow Americans and the Constitution that says regulating commerce, taxes, and debt are the methods of promoting and providing the general welfare. This time nobody will stop you. Go.
But you will stay, because we already have what you want. We have your government of, by and for the corporations and elites.
And all you authoritarian Neocons who can never admit you are wrong, or Cheney and Bush lied, how about you all go to Iraq, or wherever else, and not come home until you find those “nukular” aluminum tubes and “biological labs”?
Same deal with Free. Whenever we show evidence that conflicts with their Right Wing ideology,
Some southern states get subsidies. Lets end them. For all states. I'm down, where do I sign up for this Dave?
We keep waiting to see those death panels, the complete government takeover of health care, and those “nukular” aluminum tubes they told us about.
Just wait.
and the jobless shall multiply as fast as the stacks of cash appear for the top tier.
Oh just wait for that too. It's going to be a LOT worse than last time since now the EU is on it's last legs. I guess TARP and Stimulus and ObamaCare and Quan-Easing and all of Obama's and the Democrats Bomaconomy actually didn't work and this "recovery" is a fucking joke. Thanks guys. Now go blame some Republicans some more. We had it better when they were in, pure and simple. Not good, but better. This is a hell hole that is going to get far worse.
You lefties are going to just LOVE austerity!
The real loons, duped by radical Right Propaganda machinery, and blinded by their Mammonite worship of wealth, don’t see the corrupting influence of Big Money on our elections and government.
Or they think they're state is running better than it was a few years ago.
Secede from our Union, please.
I got a better idea. How bout all the tax and spend, redistribution, greedy, whiney, entitled libs move to say... Finland. It's a socialist quagmire up there, and I here the language and Walrus are beautiful.
Oh I can't wait as the economy spirals into the toilet hearing this crew somehow find a way to blame Bush for it nearly 4 years later LOL. Even as their socialist policy rains down around their ears. God I hope they don't increase the debt limit this year.
John,
I can just put it out on facebook if that's cool, most of my friends on it are current or former military.
Thank you, Free. That will do nicely.
Please put something like this:
John Myste would like to extend his deep gratitude for all you hard work assisting me in my efforts to save his home against Saddam Hussein's aggression.
Now go blame some Republicans some more. We had it better when they were in, pure and simple. Not good, but better.
...Says the guy yearning for the 1920’s and nostalgic for the crash of ’08.
How bout all the tax and spend, redistribution, greedy, whiney, entitled libs move to say... Finland.
I’m sure Finland is a nice place.
Look at this:
Infant Mortality Rate Per Thousand, 2010:
Iceland: 1.6
Finland: 2.4
Sweden: 2.3
Norway: 2.8
Italy: 3.1
Greece: 3.2
Denmark: 3.3
France: 3.4
Germany: 3.4
Belgium: 3.5
Netherlands: 3.8
Spain: 3.9
Switzerland: 4.1
Cuba: 4.6
Canada: 5.2
USA: 6.5
And this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm
In 2006, Finland's pupils scored the highest average results in science and reading in the whole of the developed world. In the OECD's exams for 15 year-olds, known as PISA, they also came second in maths, beaten only by teenagers in South Korea.
This isn't a one-off: in previous PISA tests Finland also came out top.
The U.N. has released a new list ranking countries in terms of happiness, based on Gallup polls taken from 2005-2011.
The top 5 are:
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Netherlands
Canada
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/06/where-are-the-worlds-happiest-countries/#ixzz1wpkik4d2
Curses on ye socialist swine!
And near and dear to Mr. Free’s heart, Finns have the right to keep and bear arms. Damn socialism. Damn their education, happiness, and better chance at life. Why don’t they want to let Big Money run their government like we do?
Yes Finland is a nice place. As for us, you mean the “tax and spend, redistribution, greedy, whiney, entitled” supporters of Constitutional taxation and regulation. No, we don’t think we should move to Finland. We want our country back.
Take Atlas and his corporate “persons” to pillage elsewhere.... Oh he’s doing that already, He just wants his tax breaks and public subsidies here, too.
It is the corruption by tax and spend, redistribution, greedy, whiney, entitled corporate elites that is taking us down. Just think of all the jobs that could be provided with all that corporate welfare money that ends up in the elite’s pockets.
Their “values” are aristocracy and corporatist plutocracy, with billions for the few and austerity for the many. Selfishness is virtue and war is sacrament at their altar of Mammon. The masses must be kept in their place. Piss in that bottle, get on you knees, and submit to the rule of Big Money if you want to keep that minimum pay job.
Since they dislike democracy, and desire plutocracy, they are the ones who should leave.
We want our government of, by and for the people back from the Robber Baron elites.
It will be a long struggle for democracy and we are losing.
Conned-servatism is the elite’s vast brainwashed cult and powerful ally against our democracy. And against public education. And public health. And prosperity. And happiness.
Gotta keep that wealth trickling up.
John,
If not for Free we would be forced to surrender our homes and liberty to Saddam, and maybe even forced to live in nukular aluminum tubes.
They hate us for our freedom. They had to pay.
What else do we need to know?
See Dave, you seem to love Finland. You guys should pack up and leave us hillbilly Red Staters to our own devices here in fly over country. We'll all be happier.
Post a Comment