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) ---- did you have to reveal that much trash in one sentence?
On Aug 16, 11:45 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
