Marx was financed by Engels, who was a wealthy heir from a capitalist family Many "liberals" in Washington DC are multi-millionaires, who either married people who inherited fortunes (Eliot Spitzer, John Kerry), or make money by becoming lobbyist and selling access to the regulatory state (Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel)
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, "Lone Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The response is too ridiculous to take seriously. Soros, the parasitic > Hedge fund speculator who made billions betting people would loose > their homes and the AP left wing socialists? No doubt President Select > Obama, who was financed by Wall St in the elections is a commie, a > socialist as well. > > If you trace back the genealogy of Obama's Wall St buddies, you will > probably find that their grandaddies were amongst the rich Jews that > apparently financed Trotsky and the Bolsheviks in the Russian > revolution. > > How people can be so desperately foolish as to accuse the most > avaristic, venal capitalist parasites of being left wing is a > reflection of the deep intractable crisis of US capitalism. It should > be noted that the type of semi fascist extremism you espouse finds no > resonation in the broad mass of the public who have no such illusions > about these characters and what they represent. This type of extremism > only finds expression in the media because of the fascistic layers > that are emerging from the far right. > > On Aug 14, 11:32 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > And your option is to let Soros and company feed us the pablum of left > > wing socialism with its poisonous base and we will thank them for it. > > We already know that Soros and his pals support the writings of their > > buddies at AP and in return AP sends out their propaganda. Given that > > how can the best interests of the people themselves evolve. Are you > > expecting the union thugs of SEIU and ACORN to give us that truth? > > > > "Lone Wolf" wrote: > > > Very sensible, niave and flawed. Genuine debate based on accurate > > > information designed to produce the best outcomes is not possible in a > > > society where the media and the government are dominated by finance > > > capital that deliberately disseminate misinformation and distortions > > > so as our children remain illiterate and our debates are puerile and > > > childish. > > > > > Yes I am left wing, but I am more than happy to abide by any decision > > > arrived at representing the will and best interests of the people > > > themselves--this is never going to occur under the current > > > enviornment. > > > > > The simple thing is, if people want consesus government, then they > > > need a government that is responsible to the people, drawn from the > > > ranks of the people. At the moment you have goverment of the > > > corporation whose representitives are drawn from their ranks. This is > > > not left wing radicalism--this is what we are confronted with. > > > > > On Aug 13, 3:38 am, Diogenes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> If we would remover the histrionics and hysteria the radical right and > > >> left are creating about health care in the US we maybe able to form a > > >> coherent and workable plan. But, so much emotion and misinformation on > > >> all sides is making rational discussion impossible. Wasting time and > > >> disruption of meaningful discussion is the problem. Rather then > > >> listening and then responding in a reasonable fashion is not what > > >> sells newspapers or feeds the 24hr news cycle, so illiterate children > > >> the American public squanders the resources of the country on puerile > > >> comments ? The bigger question is no one is asking is who benefits > > >> from this childish behavior. > > > > >> On Aug 12, 12:56 pm, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> The Rubes of EngagementWhy there's nothing "un-American" about the > health > > >>> care protests > > > > >>> David Harsanyi <http://www.reason.com/contrib/show/722.html> | > August 12, > > >>> 2009 > > >>> They own the bully pulpit. They enjoy a mandate. They can move the > votes. > > >>> They dictate the debate. They write the legislation. They monopolize > the > > >>> coverage. > > > > >>> When it comes to politics, Democrats are U.S. Steel, Ma Bell, and > Google all > > >>> rolled into one. And yet because of a mystifying cosmic event, they > are also > > >>> victims. > > > > >>> In a recent editorial in *USA Today*, Democratic House Speaker Nancy > Pelosi > > >>> and sidekick Steny Hoyer grumbled about how reactionaries are > shutting down > > >>> the voices of the enlightenment on health care. They accused town > hall > > >>> insurrectionists of being "afraid not just of differing views—but of > the > > >>> facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." > > > > >>> On one point, at least, Pelosi is correct: Many protesters are > terrified of > > >>> fact. Because the fact is every iteration of health care "reform" in > > >>> Washington is intended to lead us to a single-payer system, which > would not > > >>> only wreck innovation and competition but also inject bean-counting > > >>> bureaucrats into our health care decisions, from zygote to cremation. > > > > >>> But the notion that grass-roots opponents have the capacity—even by > acting > > >>> boorishly at a smattering of town hall meetings (rudeness, last > anyone > > >>> checked, still is protected by the First Amendment)—to "drown out" > the > > >>> voices of Washington is what our president might call silly. > > > > >>> Pelosi's party operates (in large margins) both houses of Congress, > as well > > >>> as the presidency. Elected fairly and squarely by the American > people, no > > >>> one can stop Democrats from passing any piece of legislation they > desire, > > >>> even if it controls and dispenses a good chunk of the American > economy. > > > > >>> The Republican Party, as we all know, is as impotent as it is > leaderless. > > >>> Democrats could pass health care reform today without the benefit of > a > > >>> solitary GOP vote. Democrats certainly don't need the blessing of the > mob of > > >>> irate Brooks Brothers-wearing, un-American, swastika-toting > agitators. > > > > >>> If the government-run health bill doesn't pass, it won't be the > result of > > >>> anyone's voice being quashed. In fact, I would be curious to meet the > > >>> herculean life-form that has the capability to "drown out" either > President > > >>> Barack Obama or Pelosi. > > > > >>> No television, radio, or Web site is immune from the rhetorical > maneuverings > > >>> of our dear leader. Not even "American Idol" could stop Obama from > appearing > > >>> in five prime-time news conferences already. (George W. Bush had four > his > > >>> entire presidency. Don't get me wrong, though; that was best for > everyone > > >>> involved.) If we had any more Obama, he'd require his own station. > Oh, wait. > > >>> ... > > > > >>> Not long ago, ABC News aired a prime-time health care reform > misinformercial > > >>> directly from the White House. Not a single critic was allotted > serious time > > >>> to dispel this hourlong homage to munificent leadership. This, > despite the > > >>> fact that John Stossel, one of ABC News' most popular personalities > (and one > > >>> of the most effective opponents of government-run health care), was, > I > > >>> assume, available to question the president. > > > > >>> If Obama desired a vigorous debate, as he claims, he would debate > > >>> vigorously. Instead, the president has launched snitch e-mails and a > > >>> "reality check" section on the White House Web site, which allows the > > >>> administration to conflate over-the-top accusations (e.g., "death > panels"; > > >>> the only thing being euthanized, of course, would be quality health > care) > > >>> with completely legitimate concerns (the "public option" and how it > would > > >>> displace tens of millions from their current doctors and insurance). > > > > >>> Now a "drowned-out" Pelosi has headed to the pages of the newspaper > with the > > >>> largest circulation in the nation to accuse the growing number of > involved > > >>> citizens who feel the health care agenda threatens their livelihoods > and the > > >>> country's future of acting "un-American." How's that for vigorous > debate? > > > > >>> The problem for government-run health care proponents isn't that > debate is > > >>> being "drowned out" by fanatical mobs. Quite the opposite. Their > problem is > > >>> that too many people are finally listening. > > > > >>> *David Harsanyi is a columnist at *The Denver Post* and the author of > *Nanny > > >>> State*. Visit his Web site atwww.DavidHarsanyi.com.* > > > > >>> *COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST > > >>> DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM* > > > > >>> *Discuss this article > > >>> online.<http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135372.html#comments> > > >>> * > > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM, "Lone Wolf" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>> Thats right, lets pay taxes, while we work for bugger-all and expect > > >>>> nothing in return--while the gamblers that made trillions losing > > >>>> trillions are guaranteed $23 trillion dollars in public funds to pay > > >>>> off their debts. Some off that $23 trillion should be spent on those > > >>>> that contributed the money--it could certainly go to health care, > > >>>> social services, education etc. All I am saying if we pay the money, > > >>>> can we please have the services--no more--no less > > > > >>>> The first thing that has to be done is to restore democracy--America > > >>>> is a plutocracy/financial dictatorship. > > > > >>>> It's not even a matter of socialism or capitalism. If the majority > of > > >>>> people don't want socialized medicine (though the polls show > > >>>> otherwise) and prefer to use their taxes for other things, that's > > >>>> fine--at the moment the public has no say in what happens in any are > > >>>> at all affecting their lives--the don't know where their money is > > >>>> going --there is no transparency--and corruption is out of control-- > > >>>> big business own everything--they are screwing us and suppressing > all > > >>>> opposition and debate. > > > > >>>> On Aug 13, 12:13 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan? > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> those of us who should not be forced to pay for the healthcare of > > >>>>> others > > > > >>>>> your healthcare is your responsibility > > >>>>> it is NOT an entitlement that WE should have to pay for > > > > >>>>> On Aug 12, 3:29 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan? > > >>>>>> 12 August 2009 > > > > >>>>>> President Obama’s proposed restructuring of the US healthcare > system > > >>>>>> has come under ferocious attack over the past week. Right-wing > > >>>>>> activists, in many cases organized by groups affiliated with the > > >>>>>> Republican Party or financed by sections of the healthcare > industry, > > >>>>>> turned out at town hall meetings to shout down Democratic > congressmen > > >>>>>> or Obama aides. There have been death threats and some actual > > >>>>>> violence. > > > > >>>>>> The right-wing attack combines hysterical distortion of the > provisions > > >>>>>> of the Obama plan (frequently, and falsely, branded as “socialized > > >>>>>> medicine”) with an appeal to the concerns of wide layers of the > > >>>>>> American population who sense, quite correctly, that the > healthcare > > >>>>>> restructuring being promoted in Washington will come at their > expense > > >>>>>> and will > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
