[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] LarryBaca's Blog
Liar, Liar, Magic Underwear on Fire!
Retired
Last comment by 44Magnum 1 year, 6 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form



I couldn't help but notice the bias on behalf of Willard Romney contained in the column which appeared in the Saturday Edition in the Other Views section. I admit it shouldn't have been a surprise, the columnist, Debra Saunders isn't exactly an Obama fan. The subject of her piece wasn't a surprise either (Romney follows Obama to Solyndra), the subject seems to have taken on a new life with the Romney Campaign and was probably expected, however the whole production from the rounding up of journalists and herding them into a Campaign bus and refusing to tell the captured audience of their destination due to an apparent dose of paranoia, claiming Obama forces were lurking somewhere close by, seemed overly dramatic.
The fact that the Romney Campaign is willing to bring up Solyndra which ended up losing about 1,000 permanent production jobs and burning through a $500 million federal loan, on the surface, sounds bad. But compare that failure with the astounding success of the Auto Industry Bailout (Which Romney is on record as opposing "We should Let them go Bankrupt" were his words) where thousands upon thousands of jobs were saved and Billions were pumped into the economy (with GM once again, number one), and Solyndra pales in comparison. Just putting things in perspective is enough to cast a big shadow over this little overly dramatic Romney stunt.
But wait, there is more:
1. Not only does the Romney stunt look like a Campaign flub from a perspective point of view, but apparently the Campaign must have forgotten Romney's own "Solyndra" as governor of Massachusetts, Romney handed out loans to firms in emerging technology fields, some of which ended up (like Solyndra) going bankrupt. Romney handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The two companies — Acusphere and Spherics Inc.
2. Romney made a big deal out of the job situation report which came out the same day, showing a dismal increase in the jobs report for the month, somewhere in the neighborhood of 62k jobs gained. A sorry number for sure, however perspective comes into play here as well. Remember when Obama came into office, we were hemorrhaging 700 to 800 thousand jobs a month, since then there have been something like 42 straight months of job increases, not loses, increases. Now what would you like better. Perspective is 90% of the game, isn't it?
3. And in my view, the most disturbing. during the Solyndra stunt, Romney made this incredible statement: ""An independent inspector general looked at this investment (Solyndra) and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family -- to campaign contributors." An astonishing bald faced out and out lie. The facts, if his campaign had bothered to research, maybe they did and just thought everyone would just take him at his word but given his record of just saying whatever that particular audience wants to hear (His own Campaign dubbed him the Etch-a-Sketch candidate), I am surprised the Campaign had such a low regard for the voting public. Anyway, the fact is Romney simply cited a Newsweek article that referred to a statement made by IG Gregory Friedman in March of 2011 about stimulus contracts that may have been steered to friends and family, presumably of government officials in charge of spending stimulus money. But Friedman did not say that such claims had been proved and he never mentioned Solyndra, in fact his statement came nearly six months BEFORE Solyndra declared bankruptcy.
Now we are all well aware of the fact that Romney will take every side of every issue depending on the weather or the alignment of the Cosmos and maybe we just smile and let it slide (He said he wouldn't go into Pakistan after Bin Laden then said "Of course he would", he was against the auto industry bailout then said "I take credit for that", but a Party Candidate for the Office of the Presidency of the United States to stare us in the face and tell a bald faced lie, not a hard to prove lie such as the WMDs lie but an easily re-searchable lie, well all I can say is Liar, liar, Magic Underwear on fire!


Latest Activity: Feb 08, 2013 at 9:14 PM



Blog has been viewed (1324) times.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 04, 2012 at 17:38 PM

Actions don't seem to line up with the words.

Where is the credibility and the integrity?

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 00:16 AM

Speaking of credibility and integrity??

Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way

"Those of us from Chicago know exactly what the Solyndra scandal smells like. And It doesn't smell fresh and green.

September 18, 2011|John Kass

The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing President Barack Obama. And it's being billed as a Washington story.

But back in Obama's political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls "optics." In fact, it's not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros."

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 00:24 AM

wheres theres smoke....

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com

Sep 14, 2011 09:39 AM EST

Pay attention, folks -- this is getting big. For months, Katie has been faithfully covering another simmering White House scandal that has slowly intensified with each passing revelation. The Solyndra case, by contrast, has blown up in less than a week. Here's the cliffsnotes version: A solar panel manufacturing company that received over half-a-billion taxpayer dollars in federal "stimulus" loan guarantees from the Obama administration in 2009 has filed for bankruptcy and laid off all of its employees. One of the principal investors in Solyndra was a major Obama donor. He and various Solyndra officials visited the White House repeatedly before and after the controversial loan was approved. The president toured the company's California headquarters in 2010, using the setting to tout his green energy agenda and the Recovery Act. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Solyndra imploded last month.

Last week, the FBI raided Solyndra's offices, seeking undisclosed evidence of impropriety. We also learned that Obama Energy Department representatives sat in on numerous Solyndra board meetings in the months leading up to the company's failure. They knew it was coming. Oh well, the White House argues, there are always risks in these sorts of things -- and besides, the Solyndra loan process began during the Bush administration. That house of cards is now collapsing. Yesterday, ABC News dropped the bombshell that Bush era Energy auditors actually nixed the loan as unsound, and that Obama OMB staffers raised similar concerns upon their own evaluation. The White House's political team seemed to disagree, putting the deal on a "fast track." Mere days later, the massive government loan to the unstable "green" poster-child -- backed by major Obama donor cash -- was fortuitously approved.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 00:29 AM

from
reason.com

The Republicans’ Inspector Clouseau routine with Chu left little hope that we’re going to get an aggressive investigation in this era of collegiality. And that’s not counting the shameless behavior of Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) and Henry Waxman (D-California), who began the Solyndra scandal making public-spirited noises but ended up running interference for the president.

I’m still hoping for a Rhambo subpoena. Like Evel Knievel and the Blessed Virgin Mary, I reserve the right to announce my last appearance on earth and then continue making appearances. But Solyndra does seem to be passing into the afterlife with Hillary Clinton’s statistically improbable cattle futures gains and Halliburton’s no-bid Iraq contracts: mysteries that fade not because they’ve been solved but because corruption is the fuel of effective politics.

Second, none of this stuff is new. Grist’s Roberts, who for reasons of his own attributes the Solyndra scandal to a vast right-wing conspiracy centered in the GOP-controlled halls of Politico, has been trying to wish the scandal away for the better part of a year. He’s not the only one. The criminal claims around Solyndra did not originate with the Republicans but with the president’s own Departments of Justice, Treasury and Energy. I have said all along that the criminal angle was a dead end, and it had the practical effect of shutting down the most promising material in the congressional probe.

Third, despite those obstacles, the Solyndra probe ended up shedding quite a bit of light. President Obama’s cronyism and shaky grasp of even basic 99-cent-store economics are now clear to anybody who is not willfully in denial. Chu has been revealed as a fool. Energy subsidies have been discredited, even if that hasn’t quite filtered up to the Energy Department, which is still setting aside multi-billion-dollar subsidies for green energy boondoggles:

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 16:02 PM

So native, what say you about:
1. Romney's own Solyndra and the out right lie I mentioned?
2. How about the ultra successful GM bailout? Hows that for "..basic 99-cent-store economics"??
3. How about Romney first stating GM should be allowed to go bankrupt then taking credit for it's revival after the fact?
4. How about Romney stating going after Bin Laden in Pakistan was the wrong decision then saying "Of Course" he would have made the same decision, "Even Jimmy Carter would have made that decision". Really Rambo, you sure your magic underwear won't get in the way?
5. Would Bush have made that decision? He is on record stating he didn't even think about Bin Laden.
6. Meanwhile nothing has been proven as unlawful on Obamas side in the Solyndra case, so why do you keep acting as if there is? Is that all you guys got, Solyndra, one failed investment our of how many good ones? Really, that's it? 7. No wonder the Sov so rightfully started this conversation with "Where is the credibility and the integrity?"
Can you answer any of those? Please don't quote your bible again.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 17:36 PM

Third, despite those obstacles, the Solyndra probe ended up shedding quite a bit of light. President Obama’s cronyism and shaky grasp of even basic 99-cent-store economics are now clear to anybody who is not willfully in denial. Chu has been revealed as a fool. Energy subsidies have been discredited, even if that hasn’t quite filtered up to the Energy Department, which is still setting aside multi-billion-dollar subsidies for green energy boondoggles:

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 17:37 PM

Yesterday, ABC News dropped the bombshell that Bush era Energy auditors actually nixed the loan as unsound, and that Obama OMB staffers raised similar concerns upon their own evaluation. The White House's political team seemed to disagree, putting the deal on a "fast track." Mere days later, the massive government loan to the unstable "green" poster-child -- backed by major Obama donor cash -- was fortuitously approved.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 17:44 PM

September 18, 2011|John Kass

The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing President Barack Obama. And it's being billed as a Washington story.

But back in Obama's political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls "optics." In fact, it's not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros."

I guess Larry is so busy worrying about underwear he can't read my previous posts. Note the reports are not from Romney, The GOP nor the Tea PArty

Larry how can a company fail after billions of dollars in bail outr and they have not paid it all back, They still owe>>>

OH Larry, Bin Ladens murder has not solved the terrorist problem..nor has it brought the troops home

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 18:10 PM

Who the biggest liar

Wasn't the Obamacare plan not going to cost anyone anything???

Tax cut ahead if high court voids health care law

from msnbc
I don't think this is Fox News..

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Expectations in Washington have reached feverish heights as supporters and foes of the Affordable Care Act fret about a Supreme Court ruling in the next few weeks that will decide its fate – and potentially set off a cascade of policy reverberations.
If the justices strike down the law in its entirety, for example, they would do away with $1.4 trillion in planned spending over the next ten years. Since there would be no expansion of Medicaid eligibility and no creation of insurance subsidies for middle-class people, the money for those benefits wouldn’t be spent.

A ruling which invalidated the law would also cancel more than $400 billion in tax increases between now and 2021 that Congress designed to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage.

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 05, 2012 at 19:48 PM

"Obamacare plan wasn't going to cost anyone anthing?"
Nobody said it was free...are you that naive?
Now are you going to answer the questions?
Come on, there are only 6 or so... Go ahead start with #1...

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jun 06, 2012 at 00:10 AM

Can't do it, can you?

canative62 commented on Wednesday, Jun 06, 2012 at 00:48 AM

To REPEAT;;;
from my comments above.

Yesterday, ABC News dropped the bombshell that Bush era Energy auditors actually nixed the loan as unsound, and that Obama OMB staffers raised similar concerns upon their own evaluation. The White House's political team seemed to disagree, putting the deal on a "fast track." Mere days later, the massive government loan to the unstable "green" poster-child -- backed by major Obama donor cash -- was fortuitously approved.

But back in Obama's political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls "optics." In fact, it's not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros."

I guess Larry is so busy worrying about underwear he can't read my previous posts. Note the reports are not from Romney, The GOP nor the Tea PArty

Larry how can a company fail after billions of dollars in bail outr and they have not paid it all back, They still owe>>>

OH Larry, Bin Ladens murder has not solved the terrorist problem..nor has it brought the troops home

the Solyndra probe ended up shedding quite a bit of light. President Obama’s cronyism and shaky grasp of even basic 99-cent-store economics are now clear to anybody who is not willfully in denial. Chu has been revealed as a fool. Energy

GM still owes the public money and it runs off to France to BUY Puegot???$400million Just chump change A lot like some family members who can't be responsible with their mn oey buyng luxeries then running to us to help them buy food or baby sit to save them money.... GO G M ..

canative62 commented on Wednesday, Jun 06, 2012 at 00:54 AM

.
.

Romney accuses Obama of holding onto General Motors stake to avoid loss before election

.

.

.
.

..By Holly Bailey | The Ticket – 8 hrs ago...
.

Email

3

Print
... .

.
.

Romney in Detroit (Gerald Herbert/AP)FORT WORTH, Texas—Mitt Romney accused President Barack Obama of sitting on the government's 26 percent stake in General Motors in order to avoid an embarrassing financial loss before Election Day.

In an interview with the Detroit News, Romney said he would immediately sell the government's stake in GM if he wins the presidency, even if it meant taking a loss.

"There is no reason for the government to continue to hold (its GM stake)," Romney told the paper in an interview published Tuesday. "The president is delaying the sale of the shares to try and avoid the story that the taxpayer took another loss. I would get the company independent from government and run for the interests of the consumer and the enterprise and its workers—not for the political considerations of government officials."

Per the Detroit News, the government would lose roughly $16 billion on its $49.5 billion investment in GM if the stock were sold today.

Romney, a Michigan native whose father was a top auto industry executive, has come under intense criticism for his position on the auto bailouts. He argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that the government should allow the car companies to go through bankruptcy rather than intervene financially.

In his interview with the Detroit News, Romney offered an even more nuanced description of his position on the bailouts, allowing that he would have supported some government assistance after the companies went through the bankruptcy process.

"If they needed help coming out of bankruptcy and government support, that was fine, but I was not in favor of the government writing billions of dollars in checks prior to them going into bankruptcy," Romney said in the interview. He accused Democrats of "distorting" his position on the issue.

Sorry Larry just because yooui don't like the answers doesn't mean the questions weren't answered...

As for Bush that was 4 years ago get over it..

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jun 06, 2012 at 21:12 PM

Native, repeating your post of non-answers are not answers. Now come on take them one at at time IN YOUR OWN WORDS PLEASE.. Start with no. 1. It has two parts. Here, I'll make it easier for you:

1. Romney's own Solyndra and the out right lie I mentioned?

Part I:
If what I said about that is true or not, please explain.
Part II:
Did he not lie about the investigation?

After you answer those two parts, we will move on to the next one....

Oh, before we do that, so you think the killing of Bin Laden was "murder"? According to you, Seal Team-6 are murderers... is that what you are saying?
How about his second in command Abu Yahya al-Libi, who Obama got yesterday? How about that Obama? Is he a Rambo or what?
Now answer the questions, again, IN YOUR OWN WORDS...

canative62 commented on Thursday, Jun 07, 2012 at 16:38 PM

here ya go
You are in fact in error...
1)in Romney's case the LOAN WAS IN FACT PAID BACK
2) in Romnay's case the loan was 1. 5 million compared tro 535 million

3)The deal was made BEFORE Romney took office...

from National Review
It’s fair to argue over whether the government should ever be giving out loans to private companies. But in both amount given and in outcome (Massachusetts’ loan to Korkana was paid back), Korkana is no Solyndra.

canative62 commented on Thursday, Jun 07, 2012 at 16:47 PM

The rality is the investigation is being filled with smoke by the administration...So in fact it is not concluded and many doubts remain as to the honesty of the deal.

canative62 commented on Thursday, Jun 07, 2012 at 16:50 PM

maybe Larry should get out from under the BOULDER of political propaganda from ABC,NBC,Huffington Post and the like. which are all saying the smae thing almost in the same words...

Friendo commented on Thursday, Jun 07, 2012 at 22:41 PM

Larry it's time to take the underwear off of your head.

LarryBaca commented on Thursday, Jun 07, 2012 at 23:48 PM

Native, paid back or not, the fact remains, Romney did the same thing, the amount doesn't matter.
So I should turn into FOX NOT NEWS? R U KIDDING ME?
So OK that's your answer to #1. Now #2& 3 (since they are related):
2. How about the ultra successful GM bailout? Hows that for "..basic 99-cent-store economics"??
3. How about Romney first stating GM should be allowed to go bankrupt then taking credit for it's revival after the fact?
Oh no Fredo is back... don't tell me you are one of those magic underpants guys too? That would explain much about you...
OK Native, your reply to #2&3 please, and again, in your own words, and no bible quotes.

canative62 commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 00:59 AM

2) 26 billion still owed they aint outa the woods yet...

NO you shouold continue to live under the boulder of Obama's propaganda machine and live in a dream world your god obama created, sorry to tell you it aint real...

see no Bible quotes...

canative62 commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:12 AM

Here is something for the logically minded people,sorry Larry this will be over your head.
$7000 too union members in shares chck the above post from the sec.com explaining how shareholders should be protected in a bankruptcy BY LAW just because GM did't fail YET does not over ride the law EXECPT in the LEFTS mind
Then there in the recent memory where CEOs who were under contract of bailed out companies recieved a bonus (according to the contract), the screams of protests from the left were heard around the world. NOW as long as GM is SAVED its ok to pay bonuses to people whos shares were given illegally by our god @ Pres. Obama.

Anyone find that hypocritical like I do???

canative62 commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:08 AM

heres another major accomplishment by Obama... Remember GITMO that OBAMA Promised to close in ONE YEAR?
By Michael Isikoff
NBC News

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- The U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, targeted for closure by Barack Obama during his campaign for the presidency, is instead quietly undergoing millions of dollars of upgrades that could allow it to remain open for years as a prison for suspected terrorists, NBC News has learned.

Among the recent improvements to the facility commonly known as “Gitmo”: a heavily guarded soccer field for detainees known as “Super Rec,” which cost nearly $750,000 and opened this week; cable television in a communal living quarters and “enriching your life” classes for detainees, which include instruction on learning to paint, writing a resume -- even handling personal finances.
“Well, that's one class, but it’s not a popular (one),” Army Col. Donnie Thomas, commander of the military guard

canative62 commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:33 PM

One would guess from this, that if you can't please your enemies by sending their warriors home to them, you give their warriors a country club to vacation in..while their waiting to go home...

LarryBaca commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 16:36 PM

Ok, that's all you got on #2, that figures but you forgot #3. Come on, we don't have forever here. Try staying focused, don't wander off to things like Guantanamo. The questions are simple and just require simple answers...use your fingers if you get confused..:-)

LarryBaca commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 16:45 PM

Oh, not to confuse you any more, but you never replied to my questions : "oh, before we do that, so you think the killing of Bin Laden was "murder"? According to you, Seal Team-6 are murderers... is that what you are saying?"
Care to reply to that yet?

canative62 commented on Friday, Jun 08, 2012 at 19:25 PM

the term murder was used in sarcasim, I thought with all your experience you would get it...

3) again I thought you would read my post... Romney never said he wanted G M to go bankrupt... He want private lenders to cover.
my thought.. In hind sight maybe the idea of private sector loan a loan of $26 billion that might not get paid back(see above comments) would not have been so good..

Now how about you reply to the comparison of CEO bonuses paid by bailed out financial companies as per contract, ( which the left screamed about)compared to the $7000 paid to workers at a bailed out GM where the shares were given in violation of bankruptcy law???? OH do not even try tpo come back and say to LOAN WAS PAID...

LarryBaca commented on Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 00:57 AM

Sarcasim...yeah right, do you really think anyone took it that way?

Romney never said he wanted GM to go bankrupt? You mean he never said: "...bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs."

You are getting as good as Romney Etch-a-Sketch...

canative62 commented on Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 01:54 AM

How about the comparisons Larry????

LarryBaca commented on Saturday, Jun 09, 2012 at 22:08 PM

Is that an end around play to ignore what Romney said? Are you still going to deny he said that?
It is on tape you know...

TheSovereign commented on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Native for some one who believes that the corporate mainstre*am media is biased towards the liberals, or Democrats.... Or what ever you mindless ramblings are, you seem to have no issue in using what they say to defend your feeble arguments. It sort of wears on your credibility and continues to make you look the hypocrite.

I can see your dilemma though, the only other option you have are opinion blogs by other tin foil hat wearers to support your wild fear mongering. That too creates a credibility issue for you as well.

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 15:15 PM

can't have it both ways

from
wikipedia.com (not Fox News)

In a joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard Univer$ity and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable networks of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: “The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain faring the worst (63% negative) and Romney faring a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), v$. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.”[

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 15:57 PM

Governor Romney opposed the use of TARP funds or any other funds to provide bailouts to auto manufacturers. In an op-ed in 2008 Governor Romney stated that GM should be allowed to go into a managed bankruptcy where it can shed the financial and structural obligations that are dragging down the company. He also called for the removal of the management that got the company into trouble.

In numerous TV appearances in 2009 and 2010, Governor Romney stood by his 2008 position that GM should have been allowed to enter bankruptcy on its own. He argues that instead, the company went into bankruptcy with the federal government involved. The result was that the Obama administration disregarded creditors and moved the company to the unions.

LarryBaca commented on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 at 20:53 PM

Once again, GM didn't go into bankruptcy. Why do you continue to say that.
Glad you finally did admit to what Romney said...guess you were painted into a corner on that one.
Did it hurt?

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 13:45 PM

So what LAW entitled Obama to steal shares from the rightful investors and give them to union workers???

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 13:50 PM

the real story of the government's bailout of GM, using TARP funds, is much more than just the billions of dollars involved. It is more importantly a story of governmental hubris that started with President Bush and the Republican Congress panicking and pandering to public fears, followed by President Obama and his administration - the Treasury Department in particular, skirting, or ignoring the rule of law to pursue a plan that was formulated based on political considerations rather than established contract law and sound economic procedures.

As a nation of laws, our problems with the GM bailout shouldn't be just the billions of taxpayer dollars used, they should also include the governmental bailout actions that broke whatever rules got in the way of their agenda, and, their intended efforts to deceive the public though misinformation and factual omission.

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 14:03 PM

Larry

GM Collapses Into Government's Arms
Second-Largest Industrial Bankruptcy in History; Obama Defends Intervention as CEO Asks Public for 'Another Chance'.

By NEIL KING JR. and SHARON TERLEP
General Motors Corp. GM -0.17%became the second-largest industrial bankruptcy in history Monday as it filed its landmark case, with President Barack Obama predicting the humbled corporate titan will emerge from Chapter 11 "a stronger and more competitive" company within months.

President Obama is expected to defend General Motors' bankruptcy plan and the massive bailout. The reorganization plan will call for a huge infusion of U.S. tax dollars, but the White House hopes the company will survive. Video courtesy of Fox News.
.
GM's bankruptcy caps a frenetic few months in which the Obama administration scrambled to salvage GM as well as Chrysler LLC, the country's first- and third-largest car makers, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $62 billion.

GM officials portrayed the bankruptcy -- No. 2 in asset size among industrial concerns to WorldCom's filing in 2002 -- as an unprecedented opportunity to reverse decades of decline. GM said it would close 17 factories and parts centers and lop off 20,000 more jobs by the end of 2011 in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and other states.

The government-orchestrated shrinkage will cost taxpayers $30 billion, on top of $20 billion in U.S. funds already put into the company. In exchange, the U.S. will own 60% of the new GM. In all, the rescue of the car industry could cost taxpayers close to $100 billion.

GM's court-supervised restructuring began just hours after a New York bankruptcy judge approved the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to Italy's Fiat SpA. Chrysler sought Chapter 11 protection about a month ago.

President Obama defended his decision to take a majority stake in GM, saying it was unavoidable and temporary. "We are acting as reluctant shareholders," he said in a televised address.

GM -- which hasn't made a profit since 2004 -- declared in its filing that it had $172 billion in debt and $82 billion in assets.

The government's plan calls for 10% of the new GM to be owned by existing bondholders, while a United Auto Workers union health-care fund will own 17.5%. The Canadian government will own the remaining 12.5%.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com and Sharon Terlep at sharon.terlep@dowjones.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 14:04 PM

Larry

FYI chapter 11 is in fact bankruptcy...

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 at 16:33 PM

"So what LAW entitled Obama to steal shares from the rightful investors and give them to union workers???" - So what are you saying here native, that the employees of GM weren't entitled to the money that they worked for? That is how they became the largest holder of shares after the bankruptcy. GM owed the employees over $6 billion to their pension. This isn't free money, they earned it, and it appears that you are saying that it was their loss. People deserve to be paid for the work that they do or they are just slaves, in this case, corporate slaves. The earned their money, investors can't earn on losses. Thats why its called losses.

Now the investors of GM who lost were gamblers. The hand writing was on the wall and they chose to keep their money invested in a poorly ran company. That is what happens to owners of companies that fail in the real world, they loose their wealth. I know in your capitalist first world the owners never lose, but that isn't reality. I can see this is hard for you to understand since the conservatives rescued the "too big to fail" gamblers, but that isn't reality. The "too big to fail" should have been left to fail as well.

So why do you have such distain for working people and the money they earn through hard labor, and why do you feel that capitalists can have it set up so they never loose? Risk is just that, risk.

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 at 00:05 AM

Native, tell us about the Iceberg thing again...please?....:-O

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 at 00:46 AM

OK

saw this on a facebook thread hope it (I hope this gets around

re-electing Obama
is like the Titanic
backing up and
hitting the iceberg all over again

pass it on

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 at 15:52 PM

Native, tell us about the iceberg again...:-)

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 17, 2012 at 19:49 PM

The workers EARNED the shares????
after decades of decline...
much of it from unions salaries and pensions..

"GM officials portrayed the bankruptcy -- No. 2 in asset size among industrial concerns to WorldCom's filing in 2002 -- as an unprecedented opportunity to reverse decades of decline. GM said it would close 17 factories and parts centers and lop off 20,000 more jobs by the end of 2011 in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and other states.

The government-orchestrated shrinkage will cost taxpayers $30 billion, on top of $20 billion in U.S. funds already put into the company. In exchange, the U.S. will own 60% of the new GM. In all, the rescue of the car industry could cost taxpayers close to $100 billion.

GM's court-supervised restructuring began just hours after a New York bankruptcy judge approved the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to Italy's Fiat SpA. Chrysler sought Chapter 11 protection about a month ago."

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Words and actions....

GM was on the brink, all of the BS propaganda that you can come up with will not change that. Tax payers have been supporting the likes of GE and General Dynamics for decades to the tune of trillions of dollars, and most recently Haliburton, which so happened to have ties to the last VP, and you aren't complaining about that. I didn't see you complaining about all of the war profiteering that was going on during the last decade. Again, you are a hypocrite.

“Failure is simply an opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.”
― Henry Ford

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Hey look it's canative blaming it all on the workers again! Big surprise there! Hey, why do those workers even have a wage higher than the minimum!

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

We of the sinking middle class may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose. - George Orwell

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 13:19 PM

Poor union workers I pick on them so much
from
torque.com
"Most veteran union auto workers from GM and Ford Motor Co. make in the neighborhood of $60 per hour when taking into account their pay and benefits. Chrysler Group counterparts lag at $48 hourly, including benefits. That's a compensation gap of 20% between Chrysler and GM and Ford. Crain's Detroit Business estimates that a veteran GM auto worker earns $116,480 in annual wages and benefits.

Paying the bonus is a business decision for GM. Workers forsake hourly raises to get immediate financial gratification. The company is not being magnanimous just for fun. There is a true benefit to GM for paying up right now.

It makes sense for GM to pay one-time bonuses with no taxes being taken out instead of providing COLA raises because it gives the company tax advantages. At the same time, paying bonuses from profits instead of approving permanent wage increases depresses worker pay while not harming monthly cash flow. In the event of a layoff or dismissal, that means GM would have to pay a worker less severance pay and less in jobless benefits through the state unemployment office.

The 2011 contract is expected to give newly hired and entry-level auto workers base pay raises of up to $3 per hour. That's almost 22% higher than the current rate of $14 per hour for new auto workers.

It sounds like a lot of money on paper, but veteran UAW colleagues are still getting almost twice as much money as the new people, even with the raises.

The move lets the UAW placate new people who will complain that they work just as hard or harder than highly paid veterans. The union can say they've fought to get the new people more money. At the same time, the union has been able with this deal to protect everyone's pensions while giving veterans security for their six-figure compensation, even if won't be growing exponentially, as it did during GM's salad days.

Health-care coverage costs have had all auto workers in pins and needles in recent memory and 2011 is no exception. The good news for all of GM's UAW members is that there are not expected to be any new or higher fees for the improved health-care coverage they've been told they'll get.

The union has been expert for years in keeping these costs down. GM UAW members currently pay only 7% of their health-care costs, which is unheard of in this day and age. That saves GM-UAW workers an incredible amount of money compared with the rest of the real world when it comes to co-pays and deductibles. "

If I am not mistaken thats far more than teachers get ...

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:36 PM

The median expected salary for a typical Chief Executive Officer in the United States is $727,417. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.
Source: HR Reported data as of June 2012

Sounds like a lot more than teachers get.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:41 PM

Median salary + Bonus for the typical CEO = $1,223,001

Core Compensation Median % of Total Base Salary $727,417 50.6%
Bonuses $495,584 34.4%
Value of Benefits
Social Security $24,560 1.7%
401K/403B $9,500 0.7%
Disability $8,561 0.6%
Healthcare $6,507 0.5%
Pension $16,000 1.1%
Time Off $150,523 10.5%
Total Compensation $1,438,652 100%

I can see why we need to break unions, the poor CEO's are just barely getting by.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:46 PM

I would be satisfied earning half of what the 2011 contract provides.

More laughs..."GM was on the brink, all of the BS propaganda that you can come up with will not change that."

However all of Sov's BS propaganda undoubtedly determines that GM was on the brink...On the brink of what? Necessary corporate reorganization? Necessary corporate restructuring?

Inept corporate failure that occurs during the Obama administration is simply an opportunity to be rewarded by the tax payers. Come to think of it, Obama will even make tax payers reward a company known to be headed for straight for bankruptcy.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:50 PM

“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.”
― Henry Ford

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:52 PM

Friendo, friendo friendo, try as you may, "Inept corporate failure that occurs during the Obama administration" this failure occurred under the conservative President Bush.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:57 PM

President George Bush Approves $17.4 Billion Auto Bailout

President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and he said that another $4 billion would be available for the automakers in February. The entire bailout rests on whether the companies can reorganize to show that they can return to profitability. If the companies don't come up with "a viable plan by March 31st," they would be forced to repay the loans as soon as possible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRV...

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 14:59 PM

what are the job requirements for a top rated CEO??? Ever wonder what would happen if the CEOs got into a union and got collective bargining power??
What did it cost them to go to college and get their masters compared to the qualifcations of the average laborer and their educational costs. You know the ones who fastenen bumpers on cars...???

How many qualified CEOS are there compared to the number of laborers??
ever hear of supply and demand.... they get that wage because there are so few qualified CEOs thats a fact ..

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 15:09 PM

"CEOs got into a union and got collective bargining power??" I believe this is called Congress....

Again, how sad for you the fearful, making excuses for the wealthy while you cower in your bunker afraid to go out and confront the world. Call dispatch lately?

Gandhi said you become what you hate, and it seems that he who hates socialism wants everyone to make the same, along with as little as possible.

The "trickle-down" Theory:
The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
- William Blum

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 15:23 PM

Currently, through means of obvious left-wing pandering, prompted solely by his reelection desparation, Obama has attempted to secure via disingenuous manipulation, the gay vote and the vote sympathetic toward illegal immigration. Now if he can only come up with a way to secure the majority support garnered from deceased left-wing voters...this election may get close.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 15:36 PM

Common knowledge...George Bush was not a fiscal conservative. What is Obozo's excuse??? Were we not promised CHANGE?

How will Obozo find a way to blame George Bush for the Solyndra bailout??? Rest assured Obozo and his team are working on it. Bush's blame for the Solyndra debacle will be detailed in a press release delivered late on a friday afternoon just before the presidential election in november.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 16:05 PM

In 2009 Obama stated, My Presidency will be A One-Term Proposition if the economy doesn’t turn around in 3 years.

Now I ask myself after three years and five months of Obama's failed presidency, am I now financially better off than before Obama's presidency began? For me the answer is an undeniable NO! I will be part of a landslide vote that will make Obama keep his word.

You can't remove yourself from an economic hole by digging the hole deeper. Obama needed a ladder and showed up with a shovel.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 16:15 PM

Chewie, I hope you sought and received medical attention for your scalp burns:)

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 16:43 PM

Always blaming the guy who has to clean up after the conservatives. Conservatives dig the hole, and then blame the next guy for not filling it fast enough while they just stand there complaining.

Where is that do nothing conservative congress at now, 13% approval? I guess you can only expect so much from the Conservatives.

And who do they want to replace the guy cleaning up their mess with? A liberal who as governor inherited a bad economy, who did not leave it stronger, and who created a state sponsored healthcare system with mandates. Go figure.

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:04 PM

For the record

"Again, how sad for you the fearful, making excuses for the wealthy while you cower in your bunker afraid to go out and confront the world. Call dispatch lately?"

Once again you don't know what you are talking about...

Those who do NOT know me... I was the one who got out from in front of the TV and put fliers for Neighborhood Watch door to door..I was the one to posted the notices that we call the police and I was the one hwo helpped give the Neighbors a sense of courage... SO SUE ME..
I was the one Gang Bangers threatened to kill more than three times.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:23 PM

One must keep in mind that spending, taxes and the deficit is lower now than when Obama took office. Actually, his policies, including the stimulus has accounted for an increase of 1.6%, the lowest of any president over the last 60 years.

"Common knowledge...George Bush was not a fiscal conservative" - Really, this is the best you have? I have some common knowledge for you, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. Its like Big Foot, you hear about it, but its just a hoax. There never has been a fiscal conservative. Ever! Period! Just debt ridden Conservatives.

Now, if you are looking to elect someone who as governor has balanced the budget and left a surplus, then vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. he has a record of being fiscally responsible, unlike Reagan, Bush, Bush, or Romney. Plus, he actually believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, something the Conservatives can't say.

Now getting back to the Liberal that you lesser of the two evils type want. As governor of MA , the state ranked 47% in job growth. Now that sounds like the guy this country needs.

Then the state suffered the largest population decline second only to Katrina ravaged Louisiana. "That decline largely explains the state’s decreasing unemployment rate (from 5.6 to 4.7 percent) while Romney was in office, according to Northeastern University economics professor Andrew Sum." So look out Canada, there may be a mass exodus coming your way.

Then, MA lost 14% of its manufacturing jobs under Romney's tenure as governor. That has to get the masses excited here. Maybe he intends to replace those jobs with government sponsored weapons manufacturing seeing that he wants to add to the deficit with $100 billion more over and above the $650 billion in defense spending that we already have.

Then we can't forget the debt that he piled on in traditional fiscal conservative manner. When he left office, he left a per capita (that means per person) bond debt of $10,504, the highest of any state when he left office.

So, if someone is looking for a presidential candidate with a track record of being fiscally responsible, then look no further to Libertarian Gary Johnson. If you are just looking to be the lesser of the two evils, then listen to the bunker dwellers, Friendo and Canative. Make sure you don't make your tin foil hat too tight! And don't bother calling dispatch, those two are already on the phone with them now.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:25 PM

"I was the one Gang Bangers threatened to kill more than three times." - For some reason, I have to believe it isn't just gang bangers that are threading to kill you. Tin foil hat a little tight there fringie?

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:37 PM

The more the left comments, the more open minded people will be assured that the agenda of the left is hopeless and all they have is to attack the opposition. They prove that they are in fact spin doctors and very good at it... "Reagan was so bad" yet un*employmentwas lower interest rates, in*flation and all other indicators of the economy were good and the word from the left is "cause and effect" BUT Obama has done great, the economy is in serious danger, he is spending over his head and taxing and regulating the prosperity out of businesses so they refuse to hire (but he'e a "jobs president"???).. BUT not one mention of "cause and effect" The double standard is too obvious and makes the comments from the left VERY EMPTY.. THe spin is in
ATTACK, ATTACK because the left has nothing else...

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:44 PM

The Wind Bag known as Sov spews his hot air at the accomplishments of others because thats all he's got. Desperation leads to ATTACK MODE once again. Yes...Obama has done an excellent job...according to a certain Wind Bag.

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:46 PM

The left does not accept polls. (when they go against their agenda) BUT

64% would not re-elect Obama

75% oppose Obama's amnesty plan

64% want to completely repeal Obama care and 12% would repeal part of it.

62% say we are in a recession

The poll shows 16 to 28% actually agree with these left wing radicals..

But the left on this blog can't see anything that has not been approved by their Party so they are so closed minded they can not see daylight anywhere..All they can see is RED(pun intended) and hate for the opposition..

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:49 PM

Tin foil hat, really?...OK, Wind Bag, but only if you tell us where you buy your tin foil suits.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:51 PM

Sov, If you would have told your buddy Chewie about the wonders of tin foil hats he may have avoided scalp burns. Oh well.

Friendo commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:54 PM

Now we can acknowledge the actual political party of "NO".

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 17:57 PM

Hey, Charles Bronson,

Why aren't you living in a seniors only neighborhood. Del Webb has cameras posted at the entrances. I haven't seen any graffiti there. Why aren't you living amongst the other Conservative success stories? You seem to be living proof that the conservative way works.

Friendo, nice come back, did you write that yourself? Your family must be proud!

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 19:05 PM

Fredo and Native have once again made my day...Fredo, like the Sov suggested, you are so clever!
Native, you are so brave, with gang bangers coming after you and all and you standing your ground, chest all puffed out, cape blowing in the wind... you just crack me up there Bronson...
Too bad you are living in the wrong state. Actually in the wrong dimension but hey, everyone knows that.
Fredo, I like that name, Chewie... I had a friend we called Chewie back in the hood. If you ever met him, you would surely be following him around with your finger in his rear belt loop...:-)

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 21:10 PM

Native, there is that inferior-superior complex again. Quoting the polls that you think represent your lemming mentality. So when are you going over the cliff? You just proved that you can find a pol that fits your way of thinking.

Who did the polls
How many people were polled
What were their political leaning
How old were they
What was their income range
We're they called on the phone or asked in person
If called was it on a land line or cell phone
Was the participants random or volunteers
Do they intend to vote in the next election
Did they vote in the primaries
Do they live in red states or blue states
Do they have at least a high school education
Do they have a college education
Do they hide in bunkers
Do they wear tin foil hats
Did they vote for George Bush
Do they watch FoxNews
Did they vote Conservative in the last election
Do they believe the world is flat
Have they ever had their lunch stolen as a kid
Have they ever had their lunch stolen as an adult
Do they think Commies are taking over the country
Do they think that Freddy and Fanny are to blame for the world wide economic meltdown
Were the polls conducted in your house
Do the people polled know what a recession is or have they ever been in one
Are the questions asked general or leading
Are the pollsters paid by Conservative PAC money, or RNC money

So many things to consider before claiming that your polls represent what Americans think. The only poll that counts is in November, and even I would not be so bold as to try and predict the out come.

But, if I was looking for someone who is actually fiscally responsible, will protect my constitutional rights, and not be one of the lesser of the two evils, I would take a serious look at the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 21:17 PM

Lol canative, "the left ignores polls( when it goes against their agenda)". Really? One, nobody should base their opinion on what is popular in the polls, and two, you do the same exact thing don't you. When more than a majority want taxes on the rich raised, don't want ss cut, don't want education cut, want the wars to end, were in favor of the public option, etc, you just ignored the polls right? Or do you believe in taxing the rich now?

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 at 22:59 PM

Sov, here are some more:
Do they live in a bubble.
Do they spend a lot of time in their fortress of solitude.
Do they attend political rally's wearing funny hats.
Do they shop exclusively at Wal-Mart.
Do they believe in a magic man who lives in the sky.
Do they dance with snakes.
After dinner, do they fold up the dinning room table and commence to square-dance.
Do they fear someone is following them.
Do they fear someone isn't following them.
Do they think brown people are out to get their jobs.
Do they think Black people are out to get their wives.
Do they think Asian people are too smart.
Do they think White people are naturally superior in every way.
Do they think field-hand work is below them.
Do they think the trees in Michigan are just the right height.
Do they know what donuts are.

This is fun, keep adding to the list folks...

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 00:46 AM

I sure do hope you vote for Gary Johnson
And I hope you get thousands of liberals to vote for him with you...

Have fun backing another loser...

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:44 AM

Norman Thomas Quote
Quotes of the Day

This is why those on the left are so full of hate towards conservatives.... Conservatives EXPOSE the liberal agenda.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:46 AM

This Will Never Be A Euro-Socialist Country
By Steve McCann

The Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress and the media are shocked and surprised by the depth of reaction to the proposed overhaul of the health care system and the tax and spend policies of this government. They had assumed that since the President had garnered over 69 million votes in the past election (53% of the votes cast), the American people had given him and his party a free hand to transform the country. Never mind that the votes Mr. Obama received only accounted for 30% of the voting age population in the country and that many voted for him thinking he was the moderate he proclaimed to be during his campaign for President.

It is apparent that Mr. Obama, his advisors, the leaders of the Democratic Party and the so-called intellectuals on the left appear to have little or no understanding of why the Euro-socialist utopia they envision will never be accepted by the American people. Had these elites gotten beyond their own sense of superiority they would have understood that the basic nature of the American society is unlike that of any nation in the world.

Throughout the history of mankind strong centralized governments

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:53 AM

Socialism
Nancy Morgan says, when a word comes too close to actually identifying an inconvenient reality, secular progressives spring into action. The offending word is either redefined or reduced its first letter, thereby signifying that polite society will no longer accept it. You’ve heard of the "N" word, the "B" word (think Hillary) and now comes the "S" word.

By its abbreviation, the "S" word, formerly known as socialism, infers a negative connotation. A negative connotation richly deserved due to the incontrovertible fact that socialism

In a nutshell, socialism is an economic system where property is held in common, not individually, and its ideal is a centrally directed economy. Socialism entails the substitution of group decision making for individual choice. In this case, the "group" making the decisions are the 34 (and counting) unelected and unaccountable czars Obama is anointing.

The origins of socialist thought come directly from Aristotle. Aristotle believed that since only actions aiming at a perceived benefit to others were, to his mind, morally approved, then actions solely for personal gain (capitalism) must be bad.

This theory of Aristotle’s is the basic premise of the Obama administration. By claiming the "moral high ground" of the "greater good" Obama and his minions have free reign to radically alter both our system of government and the hundreds of years of tradition it represents.

Under the guise of altruism and the greater good, Obama has launched a full scale attack on capitalism. The very capitalism that has fed the world for decades. The capitalism that has produced the highest standard of living in the freest and most productive country in the world. But, according to the ruling elite, capitalism is bad, because it entails, gasp, "profit," and every progressive worth his salt knows profit is only possible on the backs of less fortunate. Right?

Obama and the secular progressives who now determine policy in America pride themselves on being the intellectual representatives of modern thought and thus superior in knowledge, wisdom and moral virtue than those who hold traditional values (conservatives). They believe their duty is to offer new ideas to the public and deride whatever is conventional and/or traditional. Newness, not truth, is their main value.

The fly in Obama’s ointment is the fact that the system of socialism isn’t very good at creating wealth. Only individuals do that. But hey, socialism is "ethically superior" and that’s what counts. Right?

The problem with their premise can be reduced to two words -- free will. God gave us free will -- the ability to fail or succeed based on the choices we make. Obama proposes to do away with free will and vest those decisions in a central government.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:56 AM

by Tony DiPasquale

Several years ago, while living in New York, a friend from church told me an interesting story from her childhood in Cuba. As her story goes, a grade school teacher told the class to put their heads down and pray to God for candy. As expected, the children immediately lowered their heads in hopes of the sweet treats that would follow. Of course, when they raised their head they did so in disappointment, seeing no candy lying before them. At this point the teacher told the students to again lower their heads, but this time to ask Fidel Castro for candy. Surprise, surprise, when the kids lifted their heads they found candy in front of each of them.

So what is the purpose of this story, to tell you that Fidel has a “sweet” spot in his heart for children? Certainly not! But is this not similar to the action the Democrats are perpetrating upon the American people? Constantly we are told by Democrats to put our faith in them (by this they mean vote) and in return they will give us the “candy” of socialized medicine, security in retirement, and any other program that will leave us dependent upon government.

Even the late Norman Thomas, who was elated when he saw FDR embrace and even introduce many of the policies he had advocated in his run for President under the Socialist Party banner, was aware of the transformation of the Democrat Party. In fact he has been quoted as saying:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential Candidate

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM

George Soros a frequent visitor to the Obama Whitehouse..
So just who is George Soros? Well, he is a billionaire "philanthropist" who came to be known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" when he raked in a staggering one billion dollars during the 1992 "Black Wednesday" currency crisis. These days Soros is most famous for being perhaps the most "politically active" (at least openly) billionaire in the world. His Open Society Institute is in more than 60 countries and it spends approximately $600 million a year promoting the ideals that Soros wants promoted. Soros and his pet organizations have played a key role in quite a few "revolutions" around the globe over the last several decades, but these days the main goal of George Soros is to bring political change to the United States.

So exactly what is it that George Soros is trying to accomplish? Well, in a nutshell, what he wants is a Big Brother-style one world government based on extreme European-style socialism, strict population control and the radical green agenda. It would be a world where the state tightly regulates everything that we do for the greater benefit of the environment and of society as a whole.

However, Soros is not the "mastermind of the New World Order" that some have tried to make him out to be. The truth is that to those in the international banking elite, Soros is considered to be something of a "black sheep" and an "outsider". Much of what Soros is trying to accomplish lines up with the goals of the international banking elite, but what they don't like is that Soros won't stop publicly talking about a global currency and a "New World Order". Of course the international banking elite very much want a global currency and a "New World Order", but what they don't need is a "squeaky wheel" like Soros running around drawing unneeded attention to those goals.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The global governance/new world order types sure have grown increasingly open about their schemes over the past few years, haven't they? They must think that the new world order they've been working towards since founding the United Nations (UN) is within their grasp.

Pushing wars, nation-building, and a "global warming" scare for decades, they still have yet to hasten the global governance moment of their transnational-progressive dreams. Although they've built some basic infrastructure via treaties, aid, and what not, it's lucky for us that nothing ever goes as planned.

Redrawing the map via military action and nation-building has proven more difficult than our global masters had hoped. Burdened with the death and debt required of our wise overlords plans to immanentize the eschaton, the American public has grown tired of fighting foreign wars, propping up dictators and building nations. As witnessed by President Obama's launching an attack on Libya with little public support.

Selling the masses a "global warming" scare has been no picnic for our planetary rulers either. Exposed as a hoax, global warming has since been rebranded "climate change." But always on the hunt for a crisis to exploit, hoping to whip the public into a frenzy, the central banking crisis of 2008 finally gave them the perfect excuse to goad the public into demanding government action. And our new world masters found hope once again.

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM

In response to the opposition of the liberal left to the military

By Mark Karlin

"If there were no terrorists, the military-industrial complex and its political enablers would have to invent them.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's turn toward the favorite slave wage factory site for American corporations (particularly Wal-Mart), we don't need a military-industrial budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

After all, the terrorist problem is primarily a crime/intelligence issue, with some military support, but not the kind of wars that we've been engaged in.

The reality is that right now the military-industrial complex is the government's biggest jobs program, starting with those "volunteer" GIs who join because they can't otherwise find a job. If the military didn't make wars to fight, and we needed a smaller size service, the government would have to deal with a higher unemployment rate at home.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed in one of the last industries to actually produce most of its products in the U.S.: the military-industrial complex. So, if we don't make war, what are all those people going to do for jobs? And you can't keep building up military weaponry unless a lot of it is blown up in wars and used to blow up other people.

As a result, many key politicians with plants that produce "products" for the military in their districts or states, continue to vote for bloated defense budgets because otherwise they would have to deal with more job losses and disgruntled votes, not to mention reduced campaign contributions from military-industrial complex companies.

If you read the Washington Post online, you will notice quite frequently ads from big defense department contractors. One might think why they are there: after all, you or I are not going to buy a bomber, a drone, or a missile defense system. But they are there to remind government officials that the defense industry is a key part of the American corporate oligarchy and supplies a whole lot of jobs.

War and the military are our key domestic jobs programs at this point in time."

So the LIBS want higher unemployment and jobs losses.... this exposes their agenda even more... entitlements for the masses..so the masses vote for Democratic Party cadidates who keep them on entitlments.

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Native, you seem to be spinning out of control here.

"Have fun backing another loser...' - So whats it like backing a loser? Seems you are good at it.

"And I hope you get thousands of liberals to vote for him with you..." - If I was you, I would worry more about all of the disenfranchised Republicans voting for him by the millions. After all, the Conservatives have only provided lip service and no results, and the best that they or you can do is blame the Dems. Again, if you want to vote for someone with a proven track record as a Governor of cutting taxes, cutting spending, balancing a budget, leaving a surplus, and fighting for your constitutional rights, then Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson is your man for President.

Seems Libertarian Ron Paul has created quite the following amongst the disenfranchised Republicans, and since he will no longer be running for President, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will fill the void. Look at his record and his stance at: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Why vote for a Conservative (or in this case, a Liberal in Conservative clothing), who tells you what you want to hear only to do the opposite, when you have the choice of someone with a proven record. At some point, dont you start feeling the fool by voting for someone who is just using you?

There is no socialism here. There is no Liberal here. There is no Conservative here, just someone who believes in what the founders were looking to set up, and practices what he preaches. The Conservatives have voted to add $5 Trillion to the debt, how is that fiscally responsible? Gary Johnson has a record of record vetos when it comes to spending bills as governor. Vote for a man with the courage to do what he say he will do.

Best of all, he isn't trying to fear you into his way of thinking like the Conservatives are. So if you are tired if feeling you have to vote for the lesser of the two evils, there is a third choice.

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM

So Native, are you stating here, "So the LIBS want higher unemployment and jobs losses..." That the Libs are for cutting government sponsored jobs by cutting government spending thus creating a smaller government? How dare they!!!

Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.........LOL!!!!!

You have desperation written all over you.

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Native, you said "The global governance/new world order types sure have grown increasingly open about their schemes over the past few years, haven't they?" - This is the end result of the Conservatives hammering home open markets. You open the markets up to the rest of the world, and in turn you create a world governance to control it. Our Constitution was set up to have a big open market on this continent between the states, and so they can control these actions of the controlling agent, which is our Federal Government. You create the world wide beast, and then you complain when you loose control of it.

Here is the first paragraph from an article that I will post the link to (I know you wont read it, but someone seeking the truth might).

"Mitt Romney and the trickle-downistas in Congress want you to believe that if government just "gets out of the way," jobs will magically appear out of thin air. Hey presto! They want you to believe in laissez-faire government -- that we should leave the economy alone. That was a fine theory in the 18th and 19th centuries, thank you very much Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. And it may still have been an OK strategy in the early 20th century. But once globalization and technology made the world flat and interconnected... laissez-faire became obsolete. Why? Because our global economic competitors don't abide by those rules. Those competitor nations are hungry, actively intervening in the so-called "free market," to lure jobs for their citizens. Yet Romney and his Congressional allies desperately cling to the theories espoused by Adam Smith in the 1700s, hoping that we can return to those old days when our economy was isolated, not impacted by our economic competitors."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennife...

Seems your spin is getting out of control. Do you read anything but propaganda?

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM

"George Soros a frequent visitor to the Obama Whitehouse.." - So are you telling us here that George Soros is plotting with the White House to take us into two wars in order to increase Government spending to Military Contractors, and to funnel Billions of Dollars to companies associated with the VP?

Or, are you telling us that they are scheming a means to channel $700 billion tax dollars to the banks and stock brokers, or to have the Fed channel billions to corporations that have gambled big time and are no too big to fail?

Come on, this couldn't really happen..... could it?

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Native,

You said your polls showed that "75% oppose Obama's amnesty plan" and yet, I just found this article that stated "Poll: Majority Of Voters Agree With Obama’s Immigration Move." How can that be, you said that your polls showed that 75% opposed the President's action, and yet this article stated "according to a new Bloomberg Poll out Tuesday. The President made a popular move with his announcement last Friday, with 64 percent of likely voters agreeing with the new policy, while just 30 percent disagreed. "

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...

This is very different than what you stated, so who is wrong, you, or Bloomberg? Bloomberg has a pretty good reputation, unlike yourself, so who are we to believe?

Now, when it comes to a sound immigration plan, one only needs to look to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues...

He has a common sense plan that would allow for immigrant workers to obtain work visas that would allow farmers in states like Georgia, and Alabama hire migrant workers from outside of the country legaly. You know those states that scared off all of the immigrant workers with draconian laws and now have no one to pick the crops. Sounds pretty stupid on their part doesn't it? Hey, weren't you a teacher in Georgia? Nice to see how the fruits of your labor is working out there, isn't it? No peaches for you!

So getting back to your polls, who is refusing to listen to them?

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 15:27 PM

You post an EDITORIAL from the huffington post and consider it the Bottom line?? Not to mention it was by someone on Staff at LIBERAL University CAL Berkely?
BY

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm.

Former Governor of Michigan, Faculty at UC Berkeley, Host of "The War Room with Jennifer Granholm" .

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 15:32 PM

By the way you pick and choose your polls the same way you pick and choose your Bible Quote... From authorized sources.. Which mean absolutely nothing except that you are so biased you reject any opposing view THEN stand up and CLAIM you want us to work together with your views... All the while you spew HATE for the opposing side...
Good Luck...hope your man Johnson gets lots of liberal votes. Costing Obama the election

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 15:48 PM

"Former Governor of Michigan, Faculty at UC Berkeley, Host of "The War Room with Jennifer Granholm" ." - Sounds like some pretty good credentials to me, unlike the dribble that you a former teacher from Georgia, where they cut their nose off to spite their faces.

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 16:03 PM

"By the way you pick and choose your polls the same way you pick and choose your Bible Quote" - Never said it was my poll, but it sure seems to counter the made up BS you are trying to pass as fact.... like your bible.

"All the while you spew HATE for the opposing side..." - So you can dish it out, but you cant take it there Mr Hypocrite? Your lies cant stand up so in typical Christian Martyrdom fashion, you act like you are being attacked. Your Inferior-Superior complex is showing again.

"Good Luck...hope your man Johnson gets lots of liberal votes." - He doesn't need Liberal votes, the country isn't divided by Liberal and Conservative, those are two extremes. He just needs the people who are tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils. So which evil is yours, oh yeah, the Big Government, Big Spending, Big Debt, No Jobs, No Results Conservatives.

For anyone who is tired of being told one thing and then seeing those you vote for do another, its time to look at a third option. Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson has a proven track record as Governor for fiscal responsibility not just in his rhetoric, but actually in practice. Low taxes, low spending, pro Constitution, pro Bill of Rights. Everything that the Conservatives try and sell you on, and then pull the rug out from under you once in office. Remember the Compassionate Conservative who started two wars with the wrong countries, and did not ask for them to be paid for, just put it on the Country's credit card that you are now expected to pay off?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 19:10 PM

SOV
Tell us again how we should all work together for the good of the country???
In even BETTER show us how you would make that effort...

I know it is so hard for yoou perfectionist to deal with Conservatives that actually have a different point of view...
Show me where I called yopu "superior/inferior.. Show me where I called you a liar... Show me where I called you anything evil UNTIL after you started you barage of personal pronouns..
Sorry there are so many of us that we just won't go away...

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 19:34 PM

What can I say, you are a Conservative who attacks the President of the United States, who makes Liberals out to be Socialists, and blames all of the wrongs in this country on the party that didnt have control of it over the last decade. Maybe instead of challenging me, you tell us the benefits of voting for the Conservative Party, and how they have represented with results the things you will try and sell us on.

"Sorry there are so many of us that we just won't go away..." - I dont want you to go away, you are the best example I have for not voting Conservative. The more you try and slander Liberals with no ground of your own to stand on, the more we can see that it is worth while to look for a third choice.

So if anyone who is looking to find the middle ground of fiscal responsibility along with the preservation of all of our civil rights and truly believes in Liberty, check out Libertarian Gary Johnson at http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ and stop voting for the lesser of the two evils.

As Apple used to say, Think Different.

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 19:55 PM

Native, the iceberg thing, the iceberg thing...

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 20:09 PM

If I am not mistaken the liberal mentality forgets, the Democratic Party had control of the House AND Senate during BUsh's last two years. THEN control of the House, Senate and Whitehouse for two more years THEN control of the Senate and the Whitehouse
since then. THATS pretty much the majority of the past decade...

ONE more minor detail I don't usually attack individual liberals I expose the errors and failures...UNLLIKE the personal attacks of the left who have nothing else to do..except to quote authorized sources that establish their agenda..

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 21:30 PM

Oh God canative you just took it to a whole different level of stupidity with that stuff about the new world order crap. Who would have thought canative would stoop to the level of believing in a worldwide Jewish banking conspiracy?

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 21:37 PM

Please canative, all you ever do is ad hominem! "What's wrong with what this guy said? Oh well he was a liberal prof at UC Berkley! What's wrong with what he said? Oh well he is a communist. What about what that other guy said? Oh well I heard one time he was at a rally where a communist was at too, and they went to the same school together."

Never go after the actual argument behind it, and on occasion that you do you contradict yourself and show yourself to be such a hypocrite that everybody just ends up laughing at you.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 21:43 PM

I mean just look at the condemnation of George Soros. Apparently he helped fund sinister revolutions. Which ones were those again? Oh the ones in the Eastern Block? The same ones Reagan fans love to say happened because of Reagan? Shouldn't that put you on the same team as Soros? And how is Soros a sinister extreme communist/socialist whilst funding the overthrow of communism in your mind? That's what I mean, your position is so logically inconsistent that it's just laughable.

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 22:35 PM

Native, the iceberg thing, the iceberg thing....

canative62 commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 22:35 PM

SOV
Tell us again how we should all work together for the good of the country???
In even BETTER show us how you would make that effort...

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 at 23:42 PM

Canative your party has been the party of no, you have no room to talk.

canative62 commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 00:24 AM

Yeah that the way the left works together

show yourself to be such a hypocrite that everybody just ends up laughing at you.
your position is so logically inconsistent that it's just laughable.
Your Inferior-Superior complex is showing again.

Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.........LOL!!!!!

You have desperation written all over you.
Yeah work together...
feel free to show similar personal cuts by conservatives that are not resonding to such garbage from the eft..

canative62 commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 00:36 AM

from Sov s comments above

Seems your spin is getting out of control. Do you read anything but propaganda?

One high profile academic survey of American journalists is The Media Elite. The survey found that most journalists were liberal Democratic voters.

canative62 commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 00:40 AM

continuing from the wikipedia.com
site from above.

"Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mains*tream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mains*tream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored"

BUT THEN the lib trio will assure us that wikipedia is conservative bias...

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 00:43 AM

Native, the iceberg thing, the iceberg thing....

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:12 AM

Please canative, you've seen me and Sov disagree on very important subjects, I wouldn't categorize myself with him at all. But when you're spewing your bs, people are going to call you out on it, just like when Sov says something I don't agree with I say something about it. I remember that I've actually agreed with you canative a few times when it came to something Sov said and said that publicly. And please canative, if you're going to use a internet site, link to the actual webpage you are reading from, wikipedia can be a good source and sometimes it's not a good source. That's because just about anybody can write anything on Wikipedia and edit any article. Sometimes the articles on Wikipedia are well sourced and backed by good evidence and sometimes they just aren't. For example one time I went to a page on Ireland to use for my school report and it said that all Irishmen are dirty drunk bastards that beat their wives. So yeah, wikipedia, not always the best source.

TheSovereign commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:04 AM

Like I said, you are the best advertisement for not voting for Conservatives. "The Libs did it" "The socialists are coming" THE LEFT THE LEFT" "Martians short sheeted my bed!!!" "They're all out to get me!!!" "SOROS SOROS" "There was those two years, I'm telling you, it all happened those two years that the DEMS were in control, you just dont understand how powerful they are!!!!!" "If you dont think like me you are a Liberal... a Communist... Socialist, that dog is talking TO ME!!!!!"

Working together doesn't mean working with the two evils, its time for them to come around and work with us. I am tired of lies and innuendo, dirty tricks and stacking the deck in one favor or the other. If the best you have is that yours is slightly better than theirs, then you have nothing to work with. This isn't a game of one-up-mans-ship, we are talking about people's lives, and the laws of this land. There isn't two teams playing against each other, its supposed to be adult representatives who are supposed to be working together to make things fair for all, and not whom ever brings in the most money. You seem to think this is a game of making your side look better by making the other look bad. This isn't the worst that this country has ever seen, but I would think that we would have the maturity level after 230 years as a nation to expect our representatives to govern like adults.

I can understand that you are a scared older person who isn't where he might have thought he would be at this stage in life. It sounds like you live in a less than peaceful neighborhood, and I get it. You watch things on your TV and it is different than when you were in your prime, things change without our permission. This is a constant, but you project extremes that are not true, and people do not want to be accused of what you fear because you don't have control. Liberty isnt about controlling others, its about controlling yourself.

Left and right, conservative and liberal, socialist and fascist, are all extremes in this country. They are accent marks on the common language that we live by, and none of them should take president over the other. If we should be angry at any segment of our government, it should be the Congress as a whole. To quote Michael Savage, there is Democians and Republicats, there is no difference between them, they all get their money from the same people. They have the people fighting each other while they collect money from the lobbyists, who it seems are the ones writing the laws.

It never ceases to amaze me that the politicians are able to project to the press what their plan is to get the people to side with them, the press reports it, and the people fall for it. Native, you have a cable channel dedicated to this process, and you go along with it. Your gripe shouldnt be with the Democrats or the President, it should be with those who are manipulating you to get you to side with them so they can be in control of the money.

TheSovereign commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:17 AM

There is a herd mentality in this country, and especially with the baby boom generation. I am not telling people to choose my side over yours, I am telling them to quit taking sides, and research who they are going to vote for. Most importantly vote, only 25% of those registered actually voted in the primaries. Everyone talks about Democracy, and this was one of the more democratic primaries that I have seen, and 75% sat it out.

Like I said earlier, you can dish it out, but you cant take it. If you werent dishing it out, there would be no need to have to take it. Quit looking for fault and look for solutions. Quit with the "gotcha" there is no substance in it.

pegasus8 commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 14:46 PM

Heh man what is up people? How is life treating you " The Sovereign." I need to write so I though that I would start here on Larry Baca's post in position to your comment.

Do you know what is ironic in the great ironies of life say what?

Well that would be pure irony in the matter of the 24/7 hate media and the take no prisoners Karl Rove run GOP in having to swallow and accept their front runner for 2012 in the mormon guy what's his name.

And golly gee we thought that the GOP hated John McCain back say a 1000 years ago in 2008. Can anyone here imagine all those sexually frustrated sectarians neo-cons who hate the President more than putting their, " Faith," behind a person whose family practiced polygamy a few generations back?

But heck what do I know as wealthy as Mitt is he can still use all those millions contributed by those "new," people of our society. You know corporations and stuff.

Yep noting like having our cherished democratic electorial process hijacked by multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations and stuff.

But heck when Mitch McConnel can say with a straight face that corporations are people just like you and I then it is fun for the whole family!

Uh well as long as you are in the correct corporate anglo white sectarian sexually frustrated hate the poor family and stuff.

Looking forward to chatting with some educated people.

You know like a Baca and a Sovereign.

Peace out gentlemen.

Pegasus8

pegasus8 commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 17:34 PM

Heh guys kind I like comment and post stuff here?

So Baca and Sovereign how long does it take for the "moderators," to allow my stuff to get posted?

I tried this morning and I can see nothing.

Peace out people

JBL

Pegasus8

TheSovereign commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 19:38 PM

Hey Pegasus,

I was wondering how long it would be before you showed up here. I welcome another intelligent voice.

Typically my blogs post right a way.

I will be watching for yours.

Sov

TheSovereign commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 19:40 PM

Make sure you post them under Politics, or I have no idea where it will end up.

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 23:04 PM

Welcome Pegasus, look forward to your posts...

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 at 23:08 PM

TheSovereign it's funny to watch somebody with such illusions in the system. You speak like the average liberal who paints himself as the moderate while everybody else is an extreme, which is illogical I guess. And you talk as if there aren't divides in this country. Oh the government should be a place where we vote in adults who sit down together and talk out the countries problems and find solutions in good legislation. How does that work when there are so many interests in this country, interests which often con*flict with each other(and then there's always the international situation we have to think about). One persons win is another persons loss, even if it "betters" the country or whatever nationalistic goal you have.

LarryBaca commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 00:27 AM

''I'm Wolf Blitzer and yes, that's my real name.''
—CNN's Wolf Blitzer at the beginning of a November 2011 Republican presidential debate

''I'm Mitt Romney -- and yes Wolf, that's also my first name.''
—Mitt Romney, getting his own name wrong (his first name is ''Willard,'' and his middle name is ''Mitt'')

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 13:07 PM

CN,

I had a PUBLIC SCHOOL teacher with the ironic name of Mr Jon Grate, whom I saw a great teacher, teach me and the rest of my class about human behavior by breaking it down into its characteristics. He taught us that people will act in three which are, as a child, as a parent, and as an adult.

The adult will act with reason and logic. They will take the time to think through the situation to come to an intelligent solution and apply it rationally. The parent and the child use the same basic emotional thought process to achieve their goals. The child acts out irrationally to achieve their goal, and because of the high degree of emotional thought being delivered by the child, this in turn drives up the tension level in the parent spurring emotional responses. Whether that response is yelling, spanking, or taking something away from the child, the issue is not dealt with logic and intelligence, but with emotion and reaction. The only thing happening is a reestablishment of superiority.

The role of our Federal Government was established not to be as that of a parent, but as one that is to keep a level playing field so all could advance as far as they so desire to the best of their ability. This is why Congress has the responsibility to regulate, regulations are rules (laws) that are intended to keep the powerful and the ignorant from imposing their will on others. There are those that see OSHA rules as overbearing and unfair, but they keep the powerful, or the ignorant from sacrificing workers safety for larger self serving profits. One of the responsibilities of the Federal Government, but not limited to, is to manage a large free trade zone amongst the various states. This was so people, either in the form of states, corporations, or small businesses could not impose their will or bad product on others across this country. They manage this with regulations, which protect people, but it is intended to keep a level playing field.

Another area that the Government has responsibility over, and was done through the amendment process, provided in the Constitution is our civil rights. The Bill of Rights were seen by many at the time of the founding of this country as unneeded since the thought was that the freedoms and Liberties that were the intent of the founding was obvious and understood. The Bill of Rights were added for posterity's sake, and seeing how human nature works it was a good move. One of the reasons debated against the need to add them to the Constitution was that these civil rights would be limited to those listed, and history shows that to be accurate in many occasions. You see that debate carried on today.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 13:12 PM

The feelings that you and Canative present can easily fall into the "parent" and "child" paradigms that Mr Grate taught about. You both want emotional reactions to achieve your desires. Native wants the Government to act emotionally and ground or take away from those who he feels are getting an unfair advantage over him. You want the Government to act emotionally and like a parent to address the "interests" of those you stand for, and correct them in the way you want it done. The two of you are very similar in your actions, with both looking for your issues to be forcibly addressed to achieve your goals.

You stated to me, "You speak like the average liberal who paints himself as the moderate while everybody else is an extreme, which is illogical I guess." - For one, you are lashing out at me by using the conservative view of Liberal in a defensive posture. I don't take offense because the founders referred to themselves, and to their creation as Liberal. You can see it in their writings where they use the words liberal, and liberally, often. It's meaning has been changed through political speak, just like Conservative is a title that is in no way respective to the meaning of the word conservative.

I do believe that the "system" as you claim it is a good working model when managed by adults intent on running the government as designed. It's purpose is to keep a level playing field through addressing imbalances though constant rules changes that are within the principles laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution speaks to the welfare of the nation and it's people. The founders were clear that they did not intend this to mean a parent state, but in a broad stroke it does require that they address issues that can cause an imbalance to the welfare of the people and the nation. If the government acts in an adult fashion by the definition that Mr Grate presented, then the playing field will be level enough for the "special interests" to address issues themselves. People and society have a moral responsibility to protect and assist those who can't for themselves, and through our democratic process we have, which is allowable under the constitution.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 13:24 PM

Don't get me wrong, I claim to be a realist, and I can see that we live in a time where people think emotionally and not rationally. They all want what they want, and they paint reality to fit their personal view. The government does not have a role in special interests need aside from keeping the playing field level and respecting the rights, listed or not, and their liberties afforded to all. Your world view is one of oppression, and it does exists, but it's also one of wanting a parent state to provide all of your needs. Native's view is of a parent state that controls the the children so they don't get more than him. Both of you have expectations of the government that fills your personal desires, which, maybe similar in nature, are polar opposites which cause the con*flicts that you spoke to. I haven't limited myself to just two views, and I understand that compromise is accepting a middle ground. I am only aggressive to any extremist because they have no interest in middle ground or compromise, or a level playing field.

Our system is a hard on by nature, and so is life, it takes participation to achieve anything, even the most basic of needs. When you have a herd mentality, then life becomes survival of the fittest. Living in a community requires that there is a goal for the whole to support each other with their abilities, and not provide for free, so the community can thrive. People's worth comes from they can do, even if that is limited, and they deserve the right to participate and share in the benefits that come from a community.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 14:51 PM

"Our system is a hard ONE" not "hard on"

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:00 PM

Since when was the Fed founded to set a level playing field? From what I remember only white male property owners could vote when the Fed was founded and women weren't allowed to even vote until the early 1900's. And before that half the country were slave states. And even then how many times did the Feds send in its agents to defeat workers struggles instead of to protect them? You probably know all about this, I hope your not that ignorant of American history, but the way you talk about the government makes it sound like you are. Whether that's it's stated position or not is irrelevant as we can clearly see the government is just another tool of class domination. The role of the state is to best keep in place the current system. That's why it doesn't really matter if mitt or Obama win. Obama has shown to be just another "progressive" beholden to the capitalist class, Mr. Johnson would hardly be different(but I personally think libertarian capitalism is a complete failure and could hardly work given these conditions we are in).

And the reason I said you sound like a liberal was not to "lash out" at you but to point out the hypocrisy of you saying liberals are an extreme(and decrying the "extreme") whilst being just another liberal yourself. So does that make you an extremist? But aren't you a moderate? Moderates can't be extreme! No I don't find liberalism to be an extreme(most conservatives are liberals too, they just don't know it).

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:09 PM

But my worldview is not one of a parent state, a nanny state, or a welfare state(pick whatever name you want it's all the same in principle), mine is of a workers state(and eventually no state). A state established by workers that helps establishes a society where the benefits of society go to the working class and we organize production to fit our needs, not profit margins. It's a big difference from just asking for a handout.

pegasus8 commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:16 PM

Ah my dear Sovereign who is indeed the "realist," in this discussion? I remember when I gave a presentation in one of my classes on how we here in America live in a " closed" corporate controlled system.

And of course most people had that " deer in the head light look." And it is quite simple and so blatantly obvious Sovereign.

For example we all like to think that we live in a democratic society; you know how our vote counts and we are all citizens in America. We actually live in a closed totally controlled corporate world. If the tobacco interest can out spend the prop 29 people at 7 to 1 then who is really in charge of our democracy?

We live in a society where we are basically numbers. We are a SS #, a DOB #, and probably the most important # of them all our credit rating #!

We constantly hear of the pristine beauty of the so called, " Free Market." This is a complete myth; it is strictly a belief system based on falsehoods and lies.

The markets are controlled by the corporations who in turn have the state, the government, release subsidies, tax breaks, tariffs and other social sponsored corporate welfare systems.

We now, in the last two years, export more gas and oil products abroad as there has been a domestic surplus. The public can not afford to spend its limited monies on gas and heating when food and rent take precedence. And then we are told how the Keystone XL will make America more energy independent. Yeh right!

All the government does is being the " shadow" for the privately owned interest. The public has been trained, " Manufactured of the Consent." every since WW 1. We do not complained at Exxon or BP for the extorted price at the pump. We are told that it is the government's fault with too many regulations, taxes and so on and so forth.

Ah yet more on this latter because you did bring up something very important that some of the Founding Fathers wanted in the Secular documents of the birth of America; the first ten amendments of our magnificent Constitution commonly referred to as the " Bill of Rights!"

Sovereign if it was not for the power of the Bill of Rights we the people, the working calls slobs who make up 70% of the buying power in our economy yet only gather what about 20-30 of the wealth would not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out.

With out our Federally guaranteed personal rights as individuals and consumers we would be at the mercy of the corporate controlled closed system.

The greatest things to come out of American history have been mostly drawn from Keynesian administrations. You know like Teddy, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson.

And just think Sovereign today corporations now have more rights then individuals with that bizarre Citizens United Decisions and all of its horrible ramifications

Can you imagine corporate America sitting on 3 trillion.

Peace out

Pegasus

pegasus8 commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:33 PM

Heh Capitalist's Nightmare do you know what is funny, pathetic and sad all in one example? It would be how some people love to throw around the word Marxist, Communist and or Socialism.

So I see a lot of intellectual shallow people throwing around their take on " Collectivism."

Ah but if one would have invested time and energy and read the works of Marx and Engles they would see that these guys were intellectuals in the purest form of capitalism.

And not the so called free market " neo-liberlaism," capitalist of today's society.

Even right now in the state of Montana they have a law that protects their state from these huge outside corporate interest. These laws were put on the books to protect all citizens of Montana from the " Copper Kings, " from controlling their state back in the early 1900's.

This would be like how ALEC had to back track itself from the Trayvon Martin shooting with its lobbying of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. People are voting with their wallets.

So CN the realty of our nation is that it is controlled by big money, big business and the multi-nationals corporations.

Heh dude I did not know we had a 3000 word limit!

Oops pardon my passion for writing.

Peace out

Pegasus.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:42 PM

The thing is those presidencies weren't even very Keynesian, I mean that wasn't even a thing in Teddy's time. Keynes called for lowering taxes plus deficit spending and the manipulation of interest rates to try and get out/avoid crisis when it started. As much as FDR tried the Keynesian model, it did not really work, military spending was what really saved our rears and kept saving our rears economically(something canative kind of sort of pointed out actually) much after the second world war. Of course this had its disadvantages like how Germany and Japan could rely on our military spending so they put more time and investment into more productive capital(like how all of a sudden our markets were flooded with foreign cars beating us out). I'm just rambling at this point aren't I?

Anyways Keynesian economics proved to be just as ineffective at regulating capitalism as the "free market" and avoiding crisis. State capitalism proved to have its limits...

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 15:52 PM

Yes it is very sad watching people throw around the words Marxism, socialism, etc, and the ad hominem attacks levied against Marx and Engels based on something Stalin or Mao did, especially considering, economically, a lot of what is going on is happening just like they said it would irrespective of whether the society is "free-market" capitalist, "Keynesian" capitalist, "corporatist" capitalist, "state" capitalist, or "neo-liberal" capitalist. Our nation has always been controlled by those who controlled the capital and the land.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 17:34 PM

Pegasus and CN, my friends, you act as if I see the realities of the world and portray my statements as pollyanna. I have said a number of times that we have been given a system that requires participation on our parts. There is much hypocrisy in the intents of the founders and of their actions, and of their customs and of their times. No one ever stated that they were provided magic wands that they waived and all was good. They provided us a contract by which the participates would be provided a set of responsibilities that would lay the ground work to a level playing field.

If you want to point to the fact that corporations and those with wealth have made out well, they participate. CN stated, "I remember only white male property owners could vote when the Fed was founded and women weren't allowed to even vote until the early 1900's." which is true, the white male property owners were the participants. When the working class participated, sometimes as a mob, sometimes as a union, sometimes as victims, they acquired a greater say in the process, and were able to exercise their rights as the founders intended. As I stated earlier, our system is a hard one, and you can't sit around and wait for yours to be handed to you. We don't have a parent state, and when our children reach the age of adulthood, the expectation is that they will go out and do for themselves and not expect us their parents to provide for them. We can and will help them, and hopefully we taught them well enough that they will live up to the expectations that life has for them, but they have to pursue the means to their needs which is available to them.

My wife asks me all of the time why states can go against prior rulings on abortion and create laws that make it illegal, and my answer to her is that they can, but then it needs to be contested. You have to participate to keep the rules and your freedoms in place.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 17:46 PM

Pegasus, you stated, "For example we all like to think that we live in a democratic society; you know how our vote counts and we are all citizens in America." - And the answer is a resounding NO, we live in a Democratic Republic, and not a Democracy. We live in a nation of laws (rules and regulations) that are written within the guidelines of the Constitution (a contract between the states laying out principles and processes) tat are written by democratically elected representatives. The founders spoke out against Democracies due to their tendencies to flap in the wind of public opinion, which is generally derived from perception. A Democracy requires that ALL of the citizens voice an opinion in order to move forward with any action. In the last primary just held here in the democracy of California, 25% of the electorate voted. That is not how a Democracy works. The Constitution of this state was changed to remove a civil right on a vote of less than half of the citizens. That isn't a Democracy, and it doesn't meet the standard to change a Constitution on a Federal level. To somehow argue that we are a Democracy is a futile argument, and not one that I have made.

"We constantly hear of the pristine beauty of the so called, " Free Market." This is a complete myth; it is strictly a belief system based on falsehoods and lies." - The free market that our Constitution provides for is within the United States, and if our elected representatives are held to their responsibilities, it allows for free trade amongst the various states, and keeps the various states for imposing taxes on products coming into and/or through them. It also is intended to keep products made in one state from being misrepresented and/or harmful to those purchasing them in the various states. It requires participation in order for the system to work, and if we are electing representatives who are not participating in the process, we have the power to change that. Whether we do or not is pending on our willingness to participate, and in your example of Prop 29, only 25% of the electorate chose to participate. Free trade outside of the Nation of the United States is at risk of being regulated by foreign governments, and if left unchecked, leads to wars of profit by those who have participated in our system, and convince the masses of the need. If the masses do not want to participate in constantly educating themselves, they will be led to believe that these wars of profit are just and needed for security.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 20:44 PM

You both present a fear of Capitalism, and present a perception that it is evil. The same perception can be made about fire. Left to its own devises, it can and is harmful, but properly regulated and controlled, and it is a useful tool. As it appears now, the large countries that had revolutions to implement communism as its systems, have tossed it aside and implemented a form of capitalism. There are too many reasons to lay out in a paragraph as to why these countries have moved away from their versions of socialism. I am not opposed to, nor does the Constitution speak against laws that have socialist leanings. The word socialism is derived from social, and or society. I believe there needs to be a balance of both capitalism and socialism, as well as the many other "isms."

"A state established by workers that helps establishes a society where the benefits of society go to the working class and we organize production to fit our needs, not profit margins" - This is an abstract, can you elaborate how you see this system working beyond the concept of no bosses just workers?

From what I can see, it will still require capital. People will still want a return for their labor. People will still want a return for the collecting of resources. In your utopian vision, how do you see people receiving their rewards for their labor? What will be the result for those who decide not to work? Unions are their busiest defending the 10% who do not want to carry their load, so with a workers world, how do you convince the 10% to pull their load and if they don't, what is the end result. In the system we have know, you are at liberty to not work. Your benefits are greatly curtailed, and you may live on the streets or in the wild as a mountain man, but there is no law that says you have to work. So how would that work in a Workers State? Also, is this state 300 million people, or maybe just one state like Idaho? Walk me through your thought process instead of just telling us what is wrong with our system because it allows for some to gather more than others.

Corruption exists in all societies, and at this time our system has been corrupted by money. There is more reason to fix it and balance it out instead of replacing it with an extreme.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 21:16 PM

"So CN the realty of our nation is that it is controlled by big money, big business and the multi-nationals corporations." - There were controls on Corporations in the beginning of the nation. The founders were as weary of corporations as they were the King. It was a Corporation that was the target of the Boston Tea Party as much as it was the British Government.

There were regulations applied to corporations in the beginning putting limits for how long they could exist and limiting them to one commodity. When they devised the Constitution, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people," they did not imagine that Corporations would be "people." It has been through the corruption of Congress, plus the politicalization of The Supreme Court, and the participation of Corporations in the process that we are now managed by Corporations.

Participation by the people of Montana has kept Corporations out of the political system for 100 years. The activists political judges on the Supreme Court look to overturn this. An interesting concept was raised in an article that I read, which was if the Supreme Court rules this 100 year old law invalid, how do they look to enforce their ruling and keep the government of Montana from not allowing corporate political speech? The Montana Government can and may still enforce their law, what can the Supreme Court, who will be making a politically driven decision do to enforce their will on Montana?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
–John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)

Here is an interesting read concerning the founding of the nation and corporations:
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/0...

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
― Henry Ford

Participation by the citizens and regulations on corporations and the politicians are required in our system. Whether we get that is what determines the outcome.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 21, 2012 at 21:17 PM

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. - George Orwell

pegasus8 commented on Friday, Jun 22, 2012 at 15:36 PM

You make a succinct and precise argument Sov. Technically we can consider our society as one being a "democratic Republic." And we technically do not live by the "mob rule," of a purely democratic society.

I wish there was not a 3000 word limit to these comments. You know these are heavy and deep subjects not normally shared in a place of pubic discourse.

Now my take on how we live in a democratic Republic is getting rather interesting as of the last 20 years or so. And we both know the sacrosanct and importance of the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, in relationship to the individual, the group, the minority and the majority.

I strongly believe what we are experiencing today is nothing short of the destruction of the American middle class and the dismantling of a 150 years of hard fought labor laws and worker's rights.

Teddy Roosevelt knew the dangers of the powerful corporate interest to the common man in America. Then as today we are seeing a revealing if you may of a "corporate oligarchy " under the guise of the " democratic republic."

And mark my words Sov, like rice is white, once we lose our laws, what makes us equal and fair, under the Constitution with these nefarious and freedom destroying corporate acts of treason brought to the books by the powerful lobbyist controlled entities like ALEC, pharmaceutical interest, energy interest etc. is slowly but surely transforming the American experience.

Maybe Sov, it is like when the great Ben Franklin once remarked about our new nation and said, " yeh good luck trying to keep our democracy a republic.

Are all corporations bad? Nope. Are some corporations showing their cards with their agenda to control America? Yep.

Do you want the "blue pill," or the "red pill!"

Peace out dude

Pegasus

JBL

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:20 AM

What the hell is a level playing field exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what this actually means in real life terms, and where you get this idea that that is what the government was put in place for. Because if we look at the history of our society, it looks like you're just making up a bunch of stuff. Or maybe this is some end term goal that you're going for, which seems completely unattainable within the capitalist system. Of course it's a system that needs participation of some sort, but just looking at the history of any social movement I've realized that the goal can not be won within the present system. I don't expect to sit around waiting for the system to hand me anything, I don't know how clearer I have to get it through your head that I wish for the system to be destroyed, not to reconcile some differences with it.

Throughout you used to many emotionally charged words. I don't fear capitalism, I don't any know on what kind of level that is possible when you're a person that lives a life within capitalism struggling against it. Is capitalism evil? It has it's good parts and it has it's bad parts. I think we can do better than we do now and don't believe the good outweigh the bad, at least on a societal level. Controlling capitalism can have its benefits but it still runs into the same pitfalls as the unregulated "free-market" form, just look at the Soviet Union which fell into the same holes much of the time as your "Western" capitalist systems.

A society where the workers themselves hold control over the production process is one where the community collectively come together and decide how to apportion their labor out to best fulfill the needs of the community. Ultimately the products of labor would be communal, so your "reward" for work would be access to the collective product of the communities labor. I really don't know what will happen with people who don't work, I don't think there would be a lot of that anyways, but we'll just see when we get to that point. The reason I'm not a Utopian is precisely because I don't try and plan out every little thing in society like an architect would when designing a building. It's a collective effort, how every little detail plays out will be decided at that point, not before. I don't understand what you mean by the 10% who don't want to pull their load. Are you referring to union members?

And when I refer to the State I'm talking about the nation-state of Mexico, the U.S., etc. So not a State of 300 million a State of 6 billion! The system has not been corrupted by money, it's the system, it's capitalism that has always been "corrupted", that's why it's capitalism that needs to be replaced. It's not fixable, it will happen over and over again, as history has shown over and over again. It might "work"(For some people of course) for 10 years or 20 but then it will just go into crisis again. Because the internal contradictions of capitalism aren't things you just fix.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:30 AM

"I don't expect to sit around waiting for the system to hand me anything" - but you are. You and those who supposedly believe what you do have done nothing to bring forth your type of governance but to complain that you can't keep up, and all you do is join protests and then go home, to continue with your capitalist life.

Where are the shining examples of your system? Why does it need to be on a grand scale? Where are the microcosm experiments to point to? Why haven't you and yours started a community based on the ideal of a workers society?

Talk is cheap, and the concept always works out in your head the way you want it. Actions speak louder than words, and you have not shown actions that support the words. You can complain about capitalism all day long, but you have nothing to offer but complaints.

Our country's system is here with positives and negatives. The is a system in place to repair the negatives if people participate. You can't point to a working model of your ideas, just do what Canative does and blame the other guy who is participating. Our system can get away from us if we sit there numbly, yours will never exist because of the very same reason.

I have pointed out that Corporations are getting the upper hand but I am not calling to throw out the system and start a new one. I have pointed out that unregulated capitalism is damaging, but I am not calling for a new system. I have pointed out that corporatism and over bearing religions want to control us, but I am not calling for a new system. We have a good system with the means to remedy the faults, and they have been used in the past to correct them.

You can complain and point to your unicorn as the answer, but nothing will come from it. The OWS movement is and was what your unicorn system as well as the Tea Party is, just a lot of leaderless noise that is dieing on the vine. Sometimes you can get people riled up, but without a working model to follow, and no leaders to keep pointing to the process, eventually they go back to where they came from and go back to what they were doing before, which is usually nothing, just complaining while they are pacified by their TV's, drinking their beer, and stuffing junk food in their face.

I am not a materialist, but I enjoy the things that the fruits of my labor have afforded me, and it's the capitalist system that has made them possible. If we didnt have capitalism in our system we may not have the computers that we utilize for these blogs. Or the availability of out of season fresh foods, or all of the leisure items that Americans purchase with the fruits of their labor. In your system, we would always be at a "basics" level, getting only what we need.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

One of the major problems with both what you are calling for, and what the Conservatives are calling for have their roots from when our country, and the world were generally an agrarian society. We aren't that anymore, and that is one of the main reasons that Communism failed in the Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam. People want more than to just sustain themselves, which is what an agrarian society does.

It wasn't that long ago that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the people worked on farms, and now it is 10%. Manufacturing was primarily to produce equipment to aid in farming. People lived in small communities where small business thrived, and social time was spent amongst a small community. Time moved on, and there is no going back. There are too many people with too many desires to go back. We have advanced the production of food and distribution to the point that we don't need that many people to work the farms anymore.

This is what killed the communist countries. People keep multiplying, and they aren't needed on the farms anymore. The people of the Soviet Union had shoddy products that were produced that weren't manufactured for farming, and there was no reason to produce a multitude of choices because that requires investment of capital. So their solution to have manufacturing and to put people to work is the same as what the Conservatives call for, which is weapons. You don't have to rely on the market place for the success of that product since you can start a war and drive up demand.

You will never understand what a level playing field means. You don't want people to have more than you, just like Canative. We are too far down the path, with far too many people to go backwards, and that is what you and the Conservatives are calling for. That is what they are referring to when they speak of traditional times. The problem is, there is little money in that way of life, and people now want stuff that isn't traditional, like cell phones, and iPads, and 50 inch TV's, and Harley's, and microwave ovens, SUV's, Jetskis, and 3000 sqft houses.

You and yours can buy farms and start your own communal communities. That was done in the late 60's and early 70's. Some are still around, but unfortunately for the ones that don't exist anymore, the work was hard, and the available luxuries were few. So those people left the communal farms and became hyper capitalist Yuppies. The 6 billion don't want what you want, they want what the yuppies have, which is why your system will never happen on a grand level. If we have a level playing field, people have the opportunity to aspire to what level they want or can, even if it is in a communal farming society. So why haven't you started a society that you believe in?

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:36 PM

We as a society have the moral responsibility to take care of those who can't for themselves, and in many ways it protects the welfare of the nation if we provide assistance to those who can't aspire. The nation will spend the money either by helping those of need, or building and maintaining the prisons to house those in need. I prefer to use the positive method, and correct and regulate what is wrong with our system as opposed to destroying it and creating another that has no evidence that it will work at all.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Wow sovereign, I didn't know you would stoop so low! What you're saying is just blatantly false! I'm sorry if you don't know but there are so many of us out there trying to organize, recruit, educate, etc, that to say we just sit around and complain and once in a while protest is kind of insulting. Where are the "microcosm" experiments? There are many, just search up a video on YouTube called communism in the USA by RT, these set ups even exist here in the US! But it still has to somewhat live within a capitalist system, and so do all the other examples of worker control over production. It doesn't have to be worldwide but who are we kidding, the moment socialism triumphs, especially if it were the US, the other capitalist powers would either fall or turn to barbarism. Realistically trying to look at a world where socialism and capitalism coexist is just way too utopian for my likes.

You can sit here all day and say the system works, but I'm not buying it.

The OWS movement was not my "unicorn", I knew from the very beginning that the movement was not going to achieve what I would have liked it too, but I support it as a movement that pushes the spectrum of discussion further to the left towards areas of discussion of poverty, wage slavery, etc. OWS was just the starting point...

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 13:02 PM

Peg, you stated, "Teddy Roosevelt knew the dangers of the powerful corporate interest to the common man in America. Then as today we are seeing a revealing if you may of a "corporate oligarchy " under the guise of the " democratic republic." - Teddy didn't do this on his own, he had a congress that was looking to correct the situation. Teddy is one of my favorites, and it should be noted that once he left office, his party was taken over by the Conservatives, and they sold their way as the way to get rich like they were, sound so good that the people elected them as opposed to Teddy and his Bull Moose Party.

Then Under this supposed better laissez-faire system we saw the collapse of the stock market and the world economy, which led to the great deppression. This also led to the rise of fascism and a world war, followed by militaristic take over of the world economy by hyper capitalism, which provides jobs making bombs and bullets, and ships the manufacturing jobs providing the goods that satisfy the needs of Americans to third world countries.

As long as people believe they are going to get rich under a laissez-faire system, regardless of the past results to the contrary, there will be no more Teddy's to lead us, and as long as our congress has been corrupted by the militaristic hyper capitalists any Teddy's that come along will be called socialists and demonized.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jun 23, 2012 at 13:23 PM

CN, I would have liked to see OWS succeed, but they were and are leaderless, and they have achieved all that they are going to because of that.

I agree with the ills that you speak of, but your idea of a revolution that overthrows capitalism will never be more than a desire. The examples you provided with YouTube videos are lifestyle changes that people have made. Controlled capitalism will always win out over communism. Even the socialist Nordic countries are capitalist. I will bet you that once the Castro brothers pass, Cuba will join the capitalist world, which in some ways they already have.

I am not trying to insult you or your ideals, but they are extreme, and they aren't what Americans, or most people are driving towards. I think you can do good in the world with the thoughts that you have, but you can do more good from within, than from having a revolution. Revolutions lead to dictators, and your dreams always work out the way you want them to in your mind.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 02:39 AM

Hahaha seriously Sovereign! So you ask for small scale examples that work and when I do you brush it off as just lifestyle changes. Of course they are lifestyle changes but what do you expect when you're asking for small scale examples working. It's one type of lifestyle to another, what the hell does that dispute! You're just as bad as canative when I gave him a link to that movie showing workers running their own businesses. Ask for the proof and then when its given just ignore it?

The Nordic countries aren't socialist, hence them being capitalist as you just said...It's fallacious what you're saying anyways, the same fallacy that canative always committed. Sorry if my opinions won't be swayed based on what is or isn't popular, I thought you might be able to understand that...

Revolutions lead to dictators? Sorry but that was an extremely stupid comment. Are we living in dictatorship? Did the revolutions in Eastern Europe lead to dictatorship? The revolution in Egypt is being decided now between dictatorship or parliamentarianism in essense. I could point to so many revolutions not ending in dictatorship. It's like you've recently lost memory of history, although maybe I just thought you were a little more intelligent than you actually are. Idk, your line of defense/offense has been lacking.

TheSovereign commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I am not trying to sway your opinion, it is yours and you have used logic and reasoning to develop it. I just see you making the case of your dream by claiming this system has failed. The only thing that has failed is that it is overtly corrupted by money which is distorting reality in order for select groups to aquire more from others. Corruption exists in all systems, ours, theirs, the one you dream of, it does, and it will exist. What makes the difference is how that corruption is dealt with. Propaganda is the tool used to sell any system, the one we have, the one that Canative wants, the one Liberals want, and you won't be able to institute the one you want without it. Propaganda is the art of presenting the best case for ones ideas while ignoring its downsides, and typically it needs a foil to contrast against.

There isn't a large enough movement, nor will it become large enough to move our country away from what we have. After all, the statistics show that 10% of the population believes the earth is flat. That equates to nearly 30 million people which is a sizable number on its own, but not large enough to cause a revolution, which a revolution will be required to remove capitalism or our Constitution. We have, and we can make the needed corrections to our system to make the improvements needed, much like Teddy Roosevelt did, but they will only last as long as the people participate. Complacency is a human trait.

As much as the Conservatives are making a power grab at the moment, this will change over time as the next generations step up to the plate and start to institute their in.fluance. Jefferson implied that the laws of the land should be those of the generation living in it. I agree to a point, but I also believe that the Constitution is a broad stroke of guidelines, processes and procedures that it allows next generations the levity to fashion laws to fit their time. That was the intent of the founders, they did not want to write detailed laws covering every aspect of our lives, but rather to set the standard by which the laws could be written.

TheSovereign commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I can give you a number of "level playing field" examples if you need them, but I would hope that you are open minded enough to know what they are already. You and yours have enough energy and numbers to have a far greater inf.luance over the power of capitalism than just camping out in parks and occasionally marching in the streets. If there was leadership, they could guide you in effecting capitalist where they would feel the greatest pain, in their pocket books. Average people understand boycotting products of various corporations, and if properly organized, with alternative products promoted, it opens the door to greater activity, and for opportunity for the types of businesses that you see as the way we should go. Instead of promoting fear and failure, which will only acquire a limited but noisy following, you would be promoting results by working together, which is contagious, and inspiring.

This is just one example of what would put the energies that you are expelling to greater use, and to promote your ideals as positive. You see the good in your ideals, and many in the past have attempted to address the issues that your ideals are based on, and they get so far and then it goes off in another direction. Whether it was in this country, or some of the others around the world, they never seem to keep the focus. I get your idea of no government, and on small scales I can see it working for a time, but as I have said before, unless you control the masses to stay within your system, it too will deviate, and transform into something else. Why would I want to stop you from creating a better system if it was truly doable? The issue I have is you don't do enough to keep this system working to your advantage, what will you do when your system starts to go off the tracks? And they always do

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 18:23 PM

You're not trying to sway my opinion? Really? Why must you lie? Do you think I'm stupid or something? My argument is not that it's a failure because of the current crisis, as a system it should be overthrown, even if you think it's doing great(Like in the so called "golden age" of capitalism in the post-war period). The crisis we just went through and by all accounts only looks like it will get worse(With IMF presidents, nobel prize winning economists, etc, all saying we're in tough times that only look like they're getting worse)only exasperates the tension between the workers and capitalists, but it's something that is always there. Class struggle doesn't just exist when there is a crisis(Which always appears right around the same time that things get so corrupted right), but even when the corrupt bastards are doing well.

Saying there isn't a large enough movement for this or that or that there can't be is just ridiculous in my opinion. In Russia after the February Revolution the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Cadets, everybody were laughing at the thought of the Bolsheviks call for a socialist revolution, for all power to the Soviets, etc, because they were so small. In fact they just let them all in the country from abroad and laughed at them as they organized for it. A few months later history was changed with the October Revolution. History can be changed in almost an instant, ESPECIALLY in times of crisis.

And your solution to make a "level playing field"? A boycott?! AHAHAHAHAHA, seriously? Well we might as well boycott every company because what I'm against is the institution of capitalism and it's exploitation of the working class. Considering it's an inherit product of capitalism, it looks like I will be boycotting just about everything! You know what is a better guide to hurting capitalists in their pocket books and is not just some socially conscious way of not buying something? STRIKE! GENERAL STRIKE! Now that would be promoting results by working together, which is contagious and inspiring, and actually constitutes an action. You see because boycotting something is as simple as going to the store and not buying one thing but another, or going to a completely different store, which is not a very awe-inspiring action imo. You could barely call it action at all really. I boycott a few products myself, but that's not as awe-inspiring as strike action which hits the capitalist at the point of production.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 18:24 PM

But you really have no idea what I do in my life, what I'm trying to do to, as you put it, "keep this system working to your advantage", so how are you going to make that judgement call? I'm trying to chase my dream, do what I want to do with my life that I can within the current system, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be an anti-capitalist. Because it doesn't matter if I become "successful" and do what I want to do, because I'm not concerned with just myself, but with the system as a whole and the people in it. I think we can do a lot better than the current system whether or not I one day become what I want within the current system. But yes, I'm not going to try and keep this system going, as an anti-capitalist it's not my job to try and make capitalism work, I'll leave that to you liberals and conservatives.

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 21:44 PM

from
Nationalaffairs.com

THE AMERICAN EXCEPTION

In a recent study, Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch showed that public support for capitalism in any given country is positively associated with the perception that hard work, not luck, determines success, and is n*egatively correlated with the perception of corruption. These correlations go a long way toward explaining public support for ​­America's capitalist system. According to one recent study, only 40% of Americans think that luck rather than hard work plays a major role in income differences. Compare that with the 75% of Brazilians who think that income disparities are mostly a matter of luck, or the 66% of Danes and 54% of Germans who do, and you begin to get a sense of why American attitudes toward the free-market system stand out.

.... And it is true that the data yield scant evidence that social mobility is higher across the board in the United States than in other developed countries. But while this difference does not show up in the aggregate statistics, it is powerfully present at the top of the distribution — which often gets the most attention, and most shapes people's attitudes. Even before the internet boom created many young billionaires, in 1996, one in four billionaires in the United States could be described as "self-made" — compared to just one out of ten in Germany. And the wealthiest self-made American billionaires — from Bill Gates and Michael Dell to Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg — have made their fortunes in competitive businesses, with little or no government interference or help.

The same cannot be said for most other countries, where the wealthiest people tend to accumulate their fortunes in regulated businesses in which government connections are crucial to success. Think about the oligarchs in Russia, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Carlos Slim in Mexico, and even the biggest tycoons in Hong Kong. They made their fortunes in businesses that are highly dependent on governmen*tal concessions: energy, real estate, telecommunications, mining. Success in these businesses often depends more on having the right connections than on having initiative and enterprise.

In most of the world, the best way to make money is not to come up with brilliant ideas and work hard at implementing them, but to cultivate a government connection. Such cronyism is bound to shape public attitudes about a country's economic system. When asked in a recent study to name the most important determinants of fin*ancial success, Italian managers put "knowledge of in*fluential people" in first place (80% considered it "important" or "very important"). "Competence and experience" ranked fifth, behind characteristics such as "loyalty and obedience."

These divergent paths to prosperity reveal more than a difference of perception. American capitalism really is quite distinct from its European counterparts, for reasons that reach deep into history.

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 21:46 PM

op cit
Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level. True capitalism lacks a strong lobby.

That assertion might appear strange in light of the billions of dollars firms spend lobbying Congress in America, but that is exactly the point. Most lobbying seeks to tilt the playing field in one direction or another, not to level it. Most lobbying is pro-business, in the sense that it promotes the interests of existing businesses, not pro-market in the sense of fostering truly free and open competition. Open competition forces established firms to prove their competence again and again; strong successful market players therefore often use their muscle to restrict such competition, and to strengthen their positions. As a result, serious tensions emerge between a pro-market agenda and a pro-business one, though American capitalism has always managed this tension far better than most.

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 21:56 PM

Conclusion:

Capitalism was found to be the cause of both admiration and resentment towards the American identity among foreigners. Behind every sentiment towards America, there is the image of American capitalism. However, it was proven that any hatred towards capitalism is merely temporary. More surprisingly, there seemed to be an agreement amongst the interviewees that the only countries that disliked American capitalism were those that did not have it.

In general, international economies have recognized that American capitalism can keep their people wealthy and content. Money is a powerful asset, and it is difficult to imagine any foreigner turning down a system which has made the US into a 13 trillion dollar economy. Ronald McIntosh also noted that “300 million Americans can produce the same GDP as the entire continent of Europe.” The prospect of such immense economic potential is hugely appealing to foreign countries and workers, especially ones with struggling economies. McIntosh added that with capitalism comes “the ability to continuously create the most successful companies and company leaders in all the world.” Therefore, foreigners are realizing that they will never start a great company or become a great CEO without capitalism. No individual will turn down success.

The commercial appeal of American capitalism is also an undeniable cause for envy amongst the international community. Entertainment and other aspects of American lifestyles are the products of a capitalist society, a fact which drives the globalization of American companies around the world. Jonathan Joseph referenced “McDonald’s, Starbucks, and the WWE” while James Reiger cited “Levi’s and Coke.” While these things may seem laughably trivial to Americans, foreigners have not been brought up with these luxuries. As a result of commercial appeal, the American capitalist identity has essentially become a role-model for everything that foreigners want to be: rich, powerful, and fun loving. Capitalism is the system that offers these opportunities most readily.

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 22:06 PM

The Huffington Post Alexander Eichler First Posted: 12/29/11 05:43 PM ET Updated: 12/30/11 07:40 PM ET
Young people -- the collegiate and post-college crowd, who have served as the most visible face of the Occupy Wall Street movement -- might be getting more comfortable with socialism. That's the surprising result from a Pew Research Center poll that aims to measure American sentiments toward different political labels.

The poll, published Wednesday, found that while Americans overall tend to oppose socialism by a strong margin -- 60 percent say they have a negative view of it, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive view -- socialism has more fans than opponents among the 18-29 crowd. Forty-nine percent of people in that age bracket say they have a positive view of socialism; only 43 percent say they have a negative view.

And while those numbers aren't very far apart, it's noteworthy that they were reversed just 20 months ago, when Pew conducted a similar poll. In that survey, published May 2010, 43 percent of people age 18-29 said they had a positive view of socialism, and 49 percent said their opinion was negative

LarryBaca commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 22:43 PM

Yawn.......

canative62 commented on Sunday, Jun 24, 2012 at 23:21 PM

so it sounds like we got over Larry's head.. Sorry, it got too deep for him..

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 00:57 AM

Yeah, you wallow in some deep stuff, that's something everybody would agree with...:-) Hey, you said it...

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:43 AM

Lol this is so funny canative. American exceptionalism! Because those oil execs, bankers, car companies, etc, just have no help at all and aren't regulated! Haven't you been arguing for quite some time that our economy has too much gov interference? That the whole mess that was the economic crisis was the result of that crony capitalism?

canative62 commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

DID you eve READ the articles...?

one in four billionaires in the United States could be described as "self-made" — compared to just one out of ten in Germany. And the wealthiest self-made American billionaires — from Bill Gates and Michael Dell to Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg — have made their fortunes in competitive businesses, with little or no government interference or help.

REPEAT "little or no government interference or help" for AMERICAN billionaires!!

MAYBE thats why so many want to KEEP IT THAT WAY.. SO THE REAL concept is that your ideas of capitalsim are SO EUROPEAN much like the sources of ryour politics. THEY DON"T WORK AND ARE NOT WANTED HERE..

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 13:31 PM

CN,
You stated, "You're not trying to sway my opinion? Really? Why must you lie?" - it is pretty arrogant on your part to believe that it is your opinion that I look to sway, just like the same would be true of Canative to believe the same thing. An opinion is derived in ones mind, and as I have stated in the past, I agree with the Buddhist philosophy that the mind is a defense mechanism designed to protect you, and being that the two of you are extreme in your opinions, you surely will be extreme in your defense. You asked, "Do you think I'm stupid or something?" - on the contrary, I think you have taken the time to walk through your concept through your mind in the best case senerio, and you have used actions from history to support those concepts.

Then you stated, "But you really have no idea what I do in my life, what I'm trying to do to, as you put it," - and you are correct, I don't know you personally, and as much as I am going to regret that I am now in a position to make this statement, as I heard in a song once, "I knew this day was coming, I was just hoping it wasn't today," I was your age once, you have not been mine. At your age I looked at the types of injustices that you do, and I drew similar conclusions, and conceived similar remedies. At your age I thought my way was the right way, and if only everyone else saw it that way, everything would be right. I looked at all of the alternatives to what we had to find the better way, whether it was socialism, or what the Confederate States wanted to do. I moved up in my union to a shop steward position, and had the opportunity to move into a role with the international end of it because I saw management as self serving, and not caring about the employees. As stubborn as someone who in their youth can be, I still had an open mind, and was able to see the failings in all of the above, which tempered my views, and taught me to look to ways of not becoming what I hate. It made more sense to use the tools I had to work towards doing things the right way instead of wholesale change. I moved into management, and I strive each day to be a fair manager, and not the kind I hated. The extremes do not last long. They have a life span, and then they usually collapse on themselves. You point out the actions that took place in Russia, and because there wasn't a total buy in, just the force of select groups as you pointed out, it eventually collapsed.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 13:37 PM

Here is something else I learned, and it is what I keep telling you, even though people collect in groups that have similar thoughts, people are human, and they all fall back on human failings, and personal survival and benefit will always come first. Capitalism is no more to blame than a gun, or an automobile is for killing someone. Class warfare is prominent when the wealthy over extend their in*fluance to their benefit. The lines of class aren't that clear when all ships are rising. There has been poor and those in poverty through out history, and regretfully, there always will be. Life would be easier for those in these situations if people actually practiced the religions that call to assist the poor and weak. Some expect the government to take care of these people so they don't have to participate. Government is only capable of doing things in broad strokes and that is all the founders saw as its purpose. It should provide opportunity and infrastructure so those who need can sustain themselves and allow them the opportunity to seek available options. The system you dream of speaks to no government, but someone will always be on control. People follow the strong and the intelligent, and someone, good or evil will fill the position. Those people tend to look out for their needs first. In the way you describe your vision, you see the life that religions speak of, without the authority that comes from the religion. People in their religions aren't looking to produce the "heaven on earth" now with a structure, why would they without the structure?

Canative is trying to sell us on American Exceptionalism, by showing what the money can do. This nation wasn't exceptional because of what it can do with wealth, it WAS because of what the people who participated did. We aren't exceptional anymore, that belonged to prior generations. The current generation that is in charge failed us. Canative is at the top of the generation, and I am at the end of it. Canative's hero, Reagan, convinced this generation that they were exceptional, and deserved the fruits of the prior generation's labor. He convinced them that taxes were too high and were cutting into their ability to acquire the wealth that the prior generation gained through hard collective labor. So, now the masses wanting their piece of the pie that they didn't work for are throwing the needy over the side of the ship, so they can get a bigger share of the remaing resources that they were told were theirs for the taking.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 13:45 PM

In Canative's expressions that he leaves us with say that the wealthy are exceptional, and if we just let them control things, that wealth will grow, and they will share the resources with us. The expressions that you leave us with is that the workers are exceptional, and that if they were in charge the resources will be shared amongst all. It is the opportunity that we all have that is supposed to make us exceptional. Gaining wealth is one of the opportunities that make us exceptional, but it isn't the main reason, and it isn't the only opportunity.

I spoke of the teachings that my brother's boss gave us, and his wealth was in the ability to provide for his family and those who worked for him through common sense, long term investments. He lived in a capitalist world, but he didn't preach hyper capitalism, or corporatism. He was a small business man who said what he meant and did what he said. You laugh at my suggestion of boycotting corporations because they own everything, but the don't own small business which is where you turn to, and it provides opportunity like the "Old Man" did.

Wealth isn't necessarily the accumulation of money. Money can't buy happiness, and that can be seen in the woes of the rich, and of those who win the Lotto. It was the people of this country that made us exceptional, not the workers, or the managers, or the wealthy, or those in need, but the people who participated were the ones who made us exceptional.

"Because it doesn't matter if I become "successful" and do what I want to do, because I'm not concerned with just myself, but with the system as a whole and the people in it." - Seems we are on the same page. This is an admirable trait that you exibit and one that sets you above those who only look for personal gain. There is much selfishness be exhibited by those on the right, only concerned about themselves individually, and not concerned for the whole.

"I think we can do a lot better than the current system whether or not I one day become what I want within the current system." - Again, we are on the same page. Immediate participation is needed. Long term gains are made in inches and not in feet.

"But yes, I'm not going to try and keep this system going, as an anti-capitalist it's not my job to try and make capitalism work" - There are processes in our system to control and regulate capitalism. You haven't considered this option because you are upset with the tool more than the people who misuse it, and are looking for extreme alternatives as the answer.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 15:43 PM

Yes canative, I read your articles and don't get how that disproves anything that I've ever said. One in four billionaires are "self-made"? That proves what again? Yada yada, capitalist propaganda about American Exceptionalism(does your article talk about how America is in last place for social mobility compared with other industrial countries). Idk, I never said there weren't competitive markets or anything(But to discount the governments role in the advent of the internet is also pretty funny imo).

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 16:02 PM

It's arrogant to say you're trying to sway my opinion? So what's up with all of these walls of text, these stories riddled with advice, the nudging me towards reformist liberal politics? Come on, be real with me for just a second...

Yes I'm not your age, but what happened to you? You are the one that gave up and bought into the system like all those other hippies. I'm not looking for a lifestyle, that's not what communism is about, I don't have a problem with becoming a manager or something, but I'm still going to struggle against capitalism and for a socialist workers revolution.

And you just don't understand me at all, I'm as much against small business as I am against big corporations. In fact of the boycotts that I take part in to this day, two of them are small family owned businesses in Manteca.

And you really don't understand my political evolution at all either Sovereign, saying that I haven't considered this or that option. I went from conservative to liberal to libertarianism before finding a home in communism. I've considered canatives position, your position, Ron Paul's position, the Libertarian Party position, before I found something that finally made a lot of sense to me.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 17:46 PM

It is your assumption that I state my views to sway you. I heard a saying once that said about advice, wise men don't need it, and stupid men won't take it. The thought is that you, me, or anyone else that is looking for solutions to what they deem as needing solutions look to how the advice benefits them and their goal.

I haven't sold out on anything, all I did was come to understand what the system was to represent through educating myself, as opposed to demanding that things work the way I felt it should. Like Pegasus pointed out, we don't have a Democracy, we have a Republic. People like the idea of a democracy because it sounds like they have control, but even in democracy, there is no individualism. What most people believe democracy is hedges on anarchy. From the expressions you have made, you are more of a nihilist than anything else. As soon as Communism let's you down where do you go from there. It's really not for me to categorize your views, you have stated that you have tried on different views, and you are comfortable with this one.

I look at what people say, and point out the con*flict in what they are saying to achieve whatever their goal is. I have a friend who posted his wish list for the coming election. He wants to follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but wants people collecting welfare to be drug tested. He claims to be a small government believer who states he wants to grow government so that it can violate the liberties that come from the Bill of Rights. When I pointed out the con*flict, his friend questioned whether I thought we shouldn't be protecting our tax dollars from abuse, and I asked why they didn't question the war profiteering that has consumed far greater tax dollars. Stepping over dollars to pick up nickels. People seemed to only want freedoms and liberties for themselves while the needful are controlled.

We have common views on what is wrong in the world, and with this country, and through shared efforts we can see some of the ills corrected, but we obviously will not agree with the final outcome. My agenda is to see the Constution and the Bill of Rights followed and not misreprented. To counter those who misrepresent what our history shows, and to point to the processes and procedures as they are written, and not how the parties or the various groups want to present them for their own gain.

I am a moderate who believes that when we participate and direct the system it allows us what the founders intended. It's a flexible system, and it's one that can heal and/or be correct, but not by itself. I may look like a sell out to the extremists as much as you will see examples in my statements that align with either extreme, but I do not except those extremes. The knowledge that I gained is available to anyone who seeks it, and that is what I encourage, and not to take the easy way out and except what those who wish to gain from us presents as truth, when it is just propaganda.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 17:57 PM

The founders put together a concept that they referred to as an experiment. There were extremes against it at the time, and there still is extremes that are against it. I am not trying to sway your opinion, I am presenting counterpoint to yours, with some advise thrown in. You are open minded enough to look at the different factions that you listed, and you have currently settled on one, whether it is because you see no authority in it, or because it's an alternative that is still malleable enough that it still follows how you want it to. I don't agree with the extreme, and I would think you would understand that just like I understand that I am not going to convert you into something that you don't want to be.

Just keep in mind that it is our system that affords you the luxury of freedom and liberty to speak out against this system in favor of another with out the threat of imprisonment. I believe that differing views should be discussed, but that we have a working long term system that should be participated in. I don't see a reason to tear down the system, or for those without to sacrifice for the benefit of the few. Through common goals and efficient actions, we can heal and get back to all ships rising.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 19:33 PM

Sovereign I don't care how many times you sit here and extoll the virtues of moderation and something about the founders. Like really I don't care if the founders said this or that and the fallacious argument that being in the middle is right because it's in the middle of two positions. Or when you state stuff like we're a Republic, not a Democracy. For a person who only prays for it's downfall, I don't care what you call it, it's irrelevant. I'm not trying to be rude but I just seriously have no idea why you even typed any of that stuff out. Because instead of even talking about what I'm talking about it just looks like you're trying to give me a psychological examination or something. Disregard what people say, give psychological analysis of person to cover your own weak positions?

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 20:34 PM

These blogs are for sharing conversation, of which you state you have no interest in the substance of the conversations, and yet you continue to interject. If you don't care, why do you contribute? If you have nothing to offer the political system that we have, then why do you comment? What would your goal be if none of it will ever come to satisfy you?

I disagree with Canative's extremism, and distortion of facts, but he at least appreciates what the Constitution has to offer in concept. My disagreement with him is over what he presents as fact. If he has a better way, it should stand up on its own merits and not because of lies or being less bad than what he is projecting of the opposing view. Our political process has devolved into a duopoly that pits itself against itself. I look for an alternative to what the process has devolved into. The establishment looks to protect itself, and not who it should represent and that is where my stance for more parties, and at the very least, more options come in.

You may deem my positions as weak, but mine are based on something that exists and will continue to exist, while yours are fantasy that only exist with you and a handful of others never to be realized. You sit in a comfortable position, you can pick at the system without contributing, and point to a system that does not exist and pretend that it will work when there is no proof to support what you claim.

Our system has been corrupted, but it is good system. It needs involvement from the sovereigns in order to do away with the corruption. It seems that its just too hard for some to keep up, so they want to tear it down and institute an alternative what ever that may be with the hope that they can keep up with that system.

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 22:32 PM

Break in anytime there Native, we need a little humor right about now....

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jun 25, 2012 at 22:51 PM

What I'm saying is when you're sitting here lecturing me about what the founders supposedly did it is going in one ear and out the other. Just letting you know that you keep trying to provide me with useless information because I don't believe the founders to be some authority when it comes to my own ideology. You keep referencing them "the founders set up this for this reason," "the founders thought this," etc, as if that in and of itself is supposed to be a good argument for what you are arguing for. I'm just saying that it's not, it's basically inconsequential.

Why comment on a system that is as bankrupt as half the banks without government intervention? Why not? I live in this system, I don't want to, I want to change it, so why shouldn't I be commenting on it?

I deem your positions as weak because your only response to criticism of it seems to be "it's a good system, you're just a nihilist, it works". What are your solutions to the problem? More parties? Yeah, Europe is full of multi-party parliamentary bodies, they're not faring much better than we are if you hadn't noticed. I also deem your positions weak because once I actually start to criticize your positions and spend less energy on canative you fall into the same exact fallacious methods that he does!

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 26, 2012 at 00:06 AM

And I find calling me the nihilist to be funny. Yeah the guy who constantly has to defend from attacks consisting of "workers are too stupid to manage anything" is the guy that is nihilist.

Friendo commented on Tuesday, Jun 26, 2012 at 15:30 PM

Anarcho-Communist We Hardly Knew Ye!

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jun 26, 2012 at 22:19 PM

I'm not an anarcho-communist, but I find them to be a lot better than Stalinists...

Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:28 PM

@ LarryBaca...

In December, PolitiFact announced their 'Lie of the Year' for 2012. They selected Mitt Romney's claim that an Italian company that had bought Jeep was going to move production to China.

Now Reuters this week announced that in fact Fiat and Chrysler are going to be manufacturing some 100,000 Jeeps in China in 2014 with production slated to expand to 200,000 units.

So, it looks like the President was misinformed when he lambasted Mr. Romney for making such an outlandish claim... even though we now see that Mr. Romney was right. I doubt we'll see an apology anytime soon.

It make you wonder what else President Obama was 'misinformed' on. Or worse, what he 'misinformed' us on... like no tax increase for those making under $250,000 a year? Go figure...

- Ron
D20 - ICRD

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” - Oscar Wilde

“It's essential to tell the truth at all times. This will reduce life's pain. Lying distorts reality. All forms of distorted thinking must be corrected.” - John Bradshaw

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 at 18:58 PM

Wasn't that already what we knew was going to happen? I think the contentious part was Romney saying that jobs were going to be outsourced to China. Which means production stops or regresses here and continues over there. The jobs are staying here but jobs are also going to be made in China and the consumption will be based in China too if I'm not mistaken. We already knew all that...

Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 at 20:23 PM

@ Capitalists_Nightmare...

That is what Mr. Romney was warning us about, that instead of creating more jobs here by expanding the Jeep manufactiring here and exporting them overseas, Jeep/Chrysler went overseas to build them with cheap labor. That was the issue, not creating jobs here and outsourcing them overseas. Of course, Mr. Obama said that wasn't true. Well, guess what, someone wasn't being honest, and it wasn't Mitt Romney.

- Ron
D20 - ICRD

“The best way to appreciate your job is to imagine yourself without one.” - Oscar Wilde

“A lot of people nowadays have a B.A., M.D., or Ph.D. Unfortunately, they don't have a J.O.B.” - Unknown

LarryBaca commented on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 at 23:48 PM

Bull, CN is correct. Many US companies do that and many foreign countries do as well, for example Toyota has many plants in the US employing US workers. Nothing new there. Willard was implying that JEEP was shipping "US" jobs overseas, that's not the same as "Creating" jobs overseas. the score is still 332-206. Hmmm... I have to go get some sleep. gotta get up early to watch the Inauguration. It's the second one for our President Obama, you know....:-)

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Poor Bull, he tries so hard to be a game player like his FauxNews idols, and yet his audience calls him out on it.

Those FauxNews talking heads always make it look so easy to twist reality into something sinister, and when they do it, their audience sits there and nod their heads in lemming like allegiance. Unfortunately for Bull, his audience is not the same as that of his favorite entertainment and gossip channel, and they don't buy into his game playing, instead they shun him and call him out on his fabrications and inaccuracies.

Hey, Bull, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool the people on these blogs. The prototypical Conservative, they are so predictable in their game playing. Its all they have though, since they don't stand for anything in particular, and the truth and facts have left them long ago.

We have to be kind to the Conservatives, ever since Reagan closed all of their asylums they have no where to go.

TheSovereign commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

"Well, guess what, someone wasn't being honest, and it wasn't Mitt Romney." - sure it was, it is absolutely true that Romney was not being honest. The only one not being honest here is Bull.

You should find a new game, you stink at this one.

Bull153 commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 15:02 PM

@ TheSovereign...

I disagree with your assessment, but then that isn't unusual. It is a shame that your hatred of conservatives causes you to adopt the same foolish and ridiculous tactics as Hoffman. I would have expected more from you.

Oh, well, it is just as easy to ignore you as it is to ignore him. Until you can discuss things in a respectful manner, I'll be ignoring you as well.

Too bad, we've had some interesting conversations in the past.

- Ron
D21 - ICRD

“I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me... All I ask is that you respect me as a human being.” - Jackie Robinson

“Men are respectable only as they respect” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 19:15 PM

Mr. Quotes, you are fast running out of debate partners... :-)

Bull153 commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 19:19 PM

@ LarryBaca...

Perhaps, but it is their doing, not mine.

- Ron
D21 - ICRD

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” - Joseph Joubert

“Don't take the wrong side of an argument just because your opponent has taken the right side.” - Baltasar Gracian

LarryBaca commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 21:16 PM

Yeah, but who will you debate with? Quotes get old after awhile...

Bull153 commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 23:14 PM

@ LarryBaca...

Feel free to ignore them, then...

- Ron
D21 - ICRD

“It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” - Joanne Kathleen Rowling

“I discovered I always have choices and sometimes it's only a choice of attitude.” - Unknown

LarryBaca commented on Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:07 AM

I do...

crimeriddendump commented on Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Hey LarryBacaa,

If this poster is ignoring what everyone says, and doesn't want to hear anything that even slightly disagrees with his positions, why does he even bother posting in the first place?

crimeriddendump commented on Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:31 AM

“It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” -- Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Kind of reminds me of Herman Cain quoting Pokemon ...

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 at 00:21 AM

Wonder when that imaginary boat leaves for that imaginary trip....

crimeriddendump commented on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Never. It's imaginary after all. A particular poster here seems to have a major problem with his imagination getting in the way of reality. Either way, even if he "left" I figure we would just see far more activity from the homunculi.

TheSovereign commented on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM

"Mr. Quotes, you are fast running out of debate partners... " - this seems to be the trend across the country, Americans are loosing interest in what Conservatives have to say. The debate has been over for some time now. All we get now is the shouting.

crimeriddendump commented on Friday, Jan 25, 2013 at 21:29 PM

Hummmm

44Magnum commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 13:46 PM

crimeriddendump;

Is this the best you can do? "Hummmm"?

Cheers,
Randy

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 16:14 PM

Funny, seems to have got a response from you.

Anyone ever wonder why Bull153 and 44Magnum never seem to have their bust postings at the same time? Why is that ...

44Magnum commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 16:38 PM

crimeriddendump;

I don't think ANYONE even cares. By the way, what on earth is a 'bust posting'?

Cheers,
Randy

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 18:17 PM

Sorry, BURST posting was the intended wording.

Either way, I think most people can see thought the thin identity charade here.

44Magnum commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 20:10 PM

crimeriddendump;

You had it right the first time. Only it was in reference to your own postings, which are all 'busts'. Coming from you, that is to be expected.

'Identity charade'? That is a good one, Hoffman, coming from a banned individual who used identities from 'abides' to 'zxcvzxcvzxcv'.

Cheers,
Randy

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2013 at 00:33 AM

44, when is that imaginary trip taking place?

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Feb 06, 2013 at 00:33 AM

44, you're not taking the trip?

LarryBaca commented on Wednesday, Feb 06, 2013 at 19:09 PM

44 left without Bull...:-)

44Magnum commented on Friday, Feb 08, 2013 at 22:14 PM

LarryBaca;

What trip are you talking about, Larry?

Cheers,
Randy

LarryBaca commented on Saturday, Feb 09, 2013 at 00:01 AM

Never mind, it's all imaginary anyway.

44Magnum commented on Saturday, Feb 09, 2013 at 00:14 AM

LarryBaca;

Alright.

Cheers,
Randy


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by LarryBaca
 
Monkey Buisness
August 31, 2014
Just watched a video clip of John Boehner on the news, he was entertaining two little girls with a mechanical wind-up monkey that he apparently keeps on his desk. You've all seen one of these, the Monkey has a cymbal on each hand, when you wind it up, it bangs ...
Read More »
 
Mano-a-Mano With The Green Machine
August 26, 2014
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the BrightSource Energy plant near the Nevada border. Which reminded me of a couple of years ago while I was on my way to Las Vegas and noticed the plant in the distance. I thought it might be interesting ...
Read More »
 
Chubby Buddha & His Son Chris Christie
August 09, 2014
Was I the only one amused and confused by the letter (Why so much anger if god doesn't exist) Aug 8? http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/37/article/112528/ The writer first wonders aloud why Atheists have to listen to someone preach about the non-existence of "Our Creator". "Why not just live your life and not give ...
Read More »
 
Ignorance Is No Excuse
August 01, 2014
Sometimes I just have to scratch my head in bewilderment at the mindset of some people. I have to write it off as just some people being severely UN-informed, but still, ignorance is no excuse. I am of course referring to today's Your Views letter (How do poor children travel ...
Read More »
 
When The Clown Car Goes To War
July 23, 2014
After loading up the Clown Car trunk with their Bibles, assault weapons with extended magazines and extra tea bags. They fueled it up with High-Test Hypocrisy fuel and headed for Center Ring in the large circus tent where their CPAC audience waited. Apparently it was another full moon and time ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology