Politics

Republicans have become the party of ignorance, hate, fear, paranoia and absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories. Not to mention bald-faced lying.

They HATE intelligence to the point that they WANT a stupid person to lead them. They're so misinformed and fear mongered they somehow came to believe that knowledge gets in the way of what they call "conservative common sense".

Some of the utter and complete bullshit they are saying is so far out there I can't tell if they're being intentionally disingenuous just to try to smear anything on the wall that might stick for a day or two or if they really are THAT delusional. Regardless it's despicable.

I completely despise Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Bagger, anti-intellectual bigots of the radical right. Now they're battling it out with the old school GOP that's been giving the CEO's, bankers and hedge fund managers blow jobs for the last ~25 years.

 

I'm not saying anything about why we're in these wars to begin with. I don't agree with his video 100% either, some of it sounds kinda crazy. There is some truth in it though, least when they showed the primary source clips.

Rest of the time they were really vague in their facts, made me kinda skeptical.

 

I saw that film a while ago, its another typicially hysterical alex jones film which only tells half the story and the other half is over the top bs, here is a much better documentary film that shows how much misery and suffering is being caused by the banking elite across the planet, the present economic system is fundimentally flawed hence its constant instability the solution is not to remove debt from the banks it is to remove the concept of debt based currency altogether, curreny should be issued accoring to the size of the workforce and the real economy (goods and products) it has worked before and can work again.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

 

Agree about Jones. His analysis and New World Order shtick makes a mockery of the issues that he touches on. Because he has the biggest platform, a lot of people speak with him or his channel. Peter Dale Scott is a good example. He is a genius.

The central banks are terrible. They seem to be an autonomous entity that serves the needs of the robber baron super elite. The debt of poor countries gets used as a means to control them. They are forced to give up pieces of their country like their resources or their water utilities.

Here's a story about what happens when one messes with these forces:

Assassination in Germany

He was set to give a big speech on third world debt relief.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/201...-washington-d-c

Who's going? I wish I could.

 

"How Dems allowed the Tea Party to rebrand the GOP"
http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...mp;jumival=5806

 

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/29/5543912-christian-woman-faces-death-for-blasphemy

It's hard to believe that in the year 2010 we have shit like this still going on.
It's easy to get mad at these Muslim extremists but nowadays I feel more sadness for them than anything else.
Maybe as I'm getting older I'm getting softer but seriously, can you imagine living like this?
They say that they will retaliate if the death sentence of that mother of 5 isn't carried out. They say they are ready to die for the prophet. Hopefully they all blow themselves up.

 

The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System

The extent to which we are lied to by our media is staggering. To the extent that rely on mainstream media, we are utterly clueless about the true nature of the global financial system and the actual aims and methods of our national security state(s).

 

Tengu are you Swedish, as in a Swedish citizen?

 

If they find out that there are any September 11th phone hacks, the US will crucify Murdoch.

He'll still worm his way out of going to prison, but his empire is crumbling. He's lost his shot at BSkyB and he's lost Coulson, Brooks and an equally high ranking US member of his organisation. The Dirty Digger's running out of shields, and his son, James, is next.

 

This.

 

Politicians just talk.

Lol @blackdragon37 avatar

 

The cynicism at all politicians make sense, especially these days, even in the political environment (check out how naive Obama was pre-election compared to now).

That being said, politicians with integrity are VERY rare in the US.

Ron Paul is one of them. Shit, he PREDICTED the recession coming IN FRONT OF CONGRESS a few years before it happened.

Also, being a libertarian, he harbours the best of both conservative and liberal philosophies (his primary belief is to say and do what you want as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights).

Check him out. I think that unless Ron Paul become the Republican presidential nominee, all the US will be voting for are the lesser of the two evils.

 

I vehemently agree with half of what Ron Paul stands for. But unfortunately I have to disagree with his other half.

Despite being a liberal, Ron Paul made me look into and study libertarianism. While it had many admirable qualities, I ultimately had to reject it. It had a few fatal philosophical and historical flaws. All the Ron Paul supporters please hear me out.

First of all, there is a fundamental paradox between the relationship between libertarianism and democracy:

If the government is powerless to make any important decisions, then your vote is irrelevant. You are voting in a government that has no relevance anyway.

What's even more problematic is, under today's capitalism, if the government is irrelevant, then other entities would take over the vacuum: Mainly, the CORPORATIONS with money.

In democracy (in theory anyway) each person has one vote. In capitalism, one dollar has one vote. Those who have more money naturally has more power under capitalism. Thus the logical conclusion of libertarianism under today's world status is PLUTOCRACY, or at least Oligarchy. Remember during the times of the founding fathers we did not have globe spanning MNCs whose interests are divorced from the interest of the country and its people.

Of course, you may say that we already have plutocracy in this country anyway. But instead of fighting it, libertarianism removes even the theoretical barrier against the plutocracy and the capitalism run amok. Sadly this I cannot support, despite the fact I vehemently agree with many of Ron Paul's stands.

There are also historical problems with libertarianism, which I would be willing to discuss.

 

Capitalism prioritises the consumer over the business.

Corporatism prioritises the business over the consumer.

Guess which most western countries abide by?

Ron Paul believes that the main goal of the federal government is to uphold the constitution. The rest can be left to the local states.

I believe that a democratic government has two primary roles: to govern, and to provide what the private sector cannot (either because of unfair competition, costs, etc.).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's even more problematic is, under today's capitalism, if the government is irrelevant, then other entities would take over the vacuum: Mainly, the CORPORATIONS with money.</div></div> I believe that's corporatism rather than capitalism.

I think this videos describes best what libertarianism is (an hour long, but very engaging):

 

Since I can't help notice that you are in the UK, I can't help asking if you are a British, a dual citizen, an expat, or what?

The Americans who have a religious view of the founding fathers need to realize this: if we followed all the ideas of the founding fathers to the letter, the least change we would have had would be the nation splitting into two back in the time of the civil war. In fact Lincoln's war to keep the Union permanently changed the course of the nation at the crossroad. The federal government was empowered. The states' powers and rights were trampled on. And more importantly the nation would be on its way toward becoming an industrial, expansionist power under protectionism, (what the North wanted) instead of a conservative agricultural nation with free trade. (what the South wanted to become.)

The founding fathers envisioned a free republic like, say, the Shire--happy to ignore and be ignored, minding its own business while serving as an inspiration to others. Not utterly different from what eventually became of Canada and Australia.

As for corporatism/capitalism, the apologists for communism claim that the Soviet Union was under authoritarianism, never under a true communism. Guess what, that's true. We never had true communism envisioned by Marx. But maybe that's because communism doesn't work the way it was intended and naturally leads to authoritarianism? Similarly, I dare say true capitalism may not work as it was advertised, and may lead naturally to corporatism when unchecked.