Discussion:
Redistributing Wealth Upward - utter bullshit
(too old to reply)
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 15:51:21 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-party-that-truly-believes-in-redistribution/2012/09/25/c5877b7a-0740-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html?
Redistributing Wealth Upward
By Harold Meyerson | Washington Post | September 25, 2012
Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties?
Without any doubt, the Democrats. There is no <scoff> "upward
redistribution" of wealth; the very idea is absurd. It presumes,
irrationally, that market forces would have allocated the wealth to
poorer people, but the eeeeeeevil rich people intervened and redirect
the wealth to themselves. That's bullshit. The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.

This is typical left-wing bullshit. It presumes either of two wrong
things: that wealth is static, and the rich increase their share only
by taking wealth away from poorer people; or, that wealth is increased
by some sort of "collective" effort, and the rich are misappropriating
an "unfair" amount of the increase, thereby increasing their total
share. Both ideas are complete bullshit.

The share of wealth owned and controlled by rich people has increased
because they are the ones who have undertaken the efforts that have
increased the wealth. Their share also has increased because they have
successfully thwarted and in some cases *reversed* efforts to
redistribute the wealth they create away from them and toward
unproductive poorer people. If I manage to put a stop to illegal
extortion that has been regularly depriving me of wealth and income I
rightfully acquire, how can it be said - with a straight face - that I
have "upwardly redistributed" the money that used to go to the
extortionist? He never had a valid claim on it in the first place.
Silly Rabbit
2012-09-26 18:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth. They generate *all* of
the wealth for the wealthy. Without a pool of poorer people to take
advantage of, can wealthy people just work for each other and grow their
wealth? Of course not. For someone to gain, someone else has to lose.
You can't take more, without leaving someone else with less. The wealthy
take advantage of the poor.
Post by George Plimpton
The share of wealth owned and controlled by rich people has increased
because they are the ones who have undertaken the efforts that have
increased the wealth.
Rich people get to sit back and pull the levers. The money they've
already amassed makes the "efforts" effortless. It's play.
Post by George Plimpton
Their share also has increased because they have
successfully thwarted and in some cases *reversed* efforts to
redistribute the wealth they create
the wealth poorer people created for them
Post by George Plimpton
away from them and toward
unproductive poorer people.
toward productive poorer people who work for them.
Post by George Plimpton
If I manage to put a stop to illegal
extortion that has been regularly depriving me of wealth and income I
rightfully acquire, how can it be said - with a straight face - that I
have "upwardly redistributed" the money that used to go to the
extortionist? He never had a valid claim on it in the first place.
Invalid analogy. It's total shit. You are shit.
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 18:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 19:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
You sure do live in the past a lot.

liberty and property,
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 20:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/

Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”

Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
omitted in popular renditions of this classic:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.

While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”

This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 20:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/
Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.
While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”
This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
Here's another excellent one about his fellow fucking commie, Pete Seeger:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-communist.html
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Silly Rabbit
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/
Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.
While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”
This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-communist.html
Ha!

Superb backgrounder.

Bookmarked.

Goodnight Irene...forever dirt nap!
Post by George Plimpton
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
Dano
2012-09-26 22:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
======================================

Who gives a flying fuck? I thought this was supposed to be a FREE country?
You don't like that Nazi? Move to freaking Tehran!
Dano
2012-09-26 22:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
What is he running for turd?
Fair Play
2012-09-30 21:39:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Cons'rUs
2012-09-30 21:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 21:56:43 UTC
Permalink
On 9/30/2012 3:47 PM, Cons'rUs is a scumbag canuck troll.
Gunner
2012-10-01 05:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Hitler? You mean the German Socialist Workers Party leader?

That guy? He was a socialist..IE..a Leftwinger

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 05:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Hitler? You mean the German Socialist Workers Party leader?
The Nazis were not "left-wing". They - and you - are right-wing.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 21:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Fair Play
2012-09-30 22:07:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context restored.
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong , you merely demonstrate your lack of knowledge and abuse of
Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even
as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as
hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually
appropriate.[10]

Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version
which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have
been made by Glenn Greenwald.[11]
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 22:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
cloud dreamer
2012-09-30 22:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Yeah, that's an intelligent reply.

..
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 23:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Yeah, that's an intelligent reply.
..
You may also fuck the Hell off.
unknown
2012-10-01 01:39:46 UTC
Permalink
On 30/09/2012 3:36 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS - AND DELETED
William December Starr
2012-10-01 03:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Oh no, not *insolence*!

-- wds
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Oh no, not *insolence*!
It sounds like a quaint word today, but it was the sort of offense that
could get a person severely punished in the past, and it *should* get
extremists like "foul ball" severely punished today.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Oh no, not*insolence*!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 23:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 01:12:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.

When "George" posts about Nazi Germany, a response to that post is NOT
an example of Godwin's Law even if you snip out the context.

On the contrary, your own pitiful efforts are a classic example of the
abuse of Godwin's Law.

Comprendez Senor?

Probably not.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 01:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't. You're the one who first mentioned Hitler:

As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?

It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
You mean like the unbridled issuance of executive orders:

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…

Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Fair Play
2012-10-01 02:15:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.

It's bad enough that Republican clowns succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery from the disastrous effects of eight years
of their maladministration, fraud and embezzlement of the American
public.

Did you really think Republican clowns were going to be allowed to
go on to destroy the whole country for their own personal political
advantage?


With 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Senate Republicans
have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that
will more than triple old records.

Republicans setting filibuster record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35643530/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/analysis-republicans-setting-filibuster-record/

GOP senators are on pace to triple previous uses of procedural
obstruction

WASHINGTON — The filibuster — tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate
— is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack
Obama's ambitious agenda. Some even say it's made the nation
ungovernable.

Maybe, maybe not. Obama's term still has three years to run.

More certain, however: Opposition Republicans are using the delaying
tactic at a record-setting pace.

"The numbers are astonishing in this Congress," says Jim
Riddlesperger, political science professor at Texas Christian
University in Fort Worth.

The filibuster, using seemingly endless debate to block legislative
action, has become entrenched like a dandelion tap root in the midst
of the shrill partisanship gripping Washington.

The decade in politics In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were
a record 112 cloture votes. In this session of Congress, the 111th —
for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 — the number already
exceeds 40.

The most the Democrats have ever use the filibuster was 58 times in
the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.

During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this
year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote
with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

That vanished last month when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown
captured the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last summer.

However, one of Brown's first votes after taking office saw him
joining four other Republicans to help Democrats break a threatened
filibuster by his party's leaders against a job bill.

The measure, $13 billion in tax incentives for businesses to hire
unemployed workers, was quickly passed the next day with 12
Republicans joining Brown and 55 Democrats in favor of it.

Filibusters to make the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress
look inept are one thing. Quite another is a vote against creating
jobs in an economy with nearly 10 percent unemployment and elections
nine months away.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.

You leftists are totalitarians.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 03:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy and the will of the people against Republican
obstructionism.
Post by George Plimpton
You leftists are totalitarians.
The Republicans are preventing creation of approx. 2 million jobs (as
cited by the CBO) by delaying the Transportation bill, blocking bills
the American Jobs Act, Veterans Jobs Bill, INSourcing Jobs Act,
Construction, Infrastructure, Teachers/First Responders, threatening
to use the same obstructionist hostage taking tactics AGAIN to send
the U.S. over the cliff, and then the GOP gets on TV and radio ads and
tell bold-face LIES, and try to CON you into thinking Obama is at
fault, when IN FACT, the Republicans are at fault with their
despicable obstructionism and policies . . . .

Americans should be outraged and vote ALL Republicans out of office -
don’t reward them for their obstructionism, demise of the middle
class, jobs, etc, and BETRAYAL of Americans.

The GOP has adopted a scorched earth strategy - either they get their
agenda without compromise or they SINK this entire country. The GOP
sees the U.S. citizens economic RUIN as their way to be re-elected
with a Republican president in 2012 - they want our country to FAIL,
and this should make Americans determined to NEVER vote them back into
office . . .

Vote Democrat for President, Congress (House/Senate), Governor, etc. .
Re-elect Obama 2012!
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.

You're a fascist totalitarian.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 04:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB was a bad boy then right "George'?

I guess you complained loudly as he used them?

You didn't?

That's odd.
Post by George Plimpton
You're a fascist totalitarian.
Fascist or Communist?

Make your mind up with your meaningless outdated
50"s smears and slurs.

Your crazy slanders and smears are becoming even more
confused and self-contradictory.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 04:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
          As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
          yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit.  It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
    EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him.  We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about.  We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.

Figures.

Another conservative bag of shit that wants to kill the President.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.
He never said that, liar.

You, otoh, should kill yourself, soon.
George Plimpton
2012-10-02 04:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.
You're really a fuckwit - a snarky juvenile fuckwit.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Make your mind up with your meaningless outdated
50"s smears and slurs.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 16:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Your crazy slanders and smears are becoming even more
confused and self-contradictory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Of course.
It's bad enough that
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
       As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
       yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit.  It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
  EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So you provide the proof of how the Repubicans are obstructing the
operation of the Congress...and the answer to that is for the American
public needs to vote the bastards out.

I agree.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Repubicans are obstructing the
operation of the Congress.
Democrats ignore it.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:41:04 UTC
Permalink
the American public needs to vote the bastards out.
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 01:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany


From: somebody else made that happen <***@did.it>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?

It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.

Once again here we are in context.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by George Plimpton
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by George Plimpton
not to mention complete bullshit. It is the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
You are deluded, there is no "Left" in ascendancy in the US.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 03:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious you didn't but thanks for confirming it.
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are your deluded smears and crazed ad
hominess?

Way to go "George"
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 04:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!

Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?

Go tell your psychiatrist your meds aren't working any more "George".
It's time.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 04:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 05:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.

Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts certainly doesn't help.


Speaking of not paying taxes & entitlement, how about the 26 Fortune
500 corporations that haven’t paid tax in 4 years?

http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/09/speaking-of-not-paying-taxes-entitlement-how-about-the-26-corporations-that-havent-paid-tax-in-4-years.html

September 18, 2012 in GOPocrisy, Lies, Mitt Romney

Say, Mitt, when will these guys take personal responsibility & care
about THEIR lives?

With Mitt Romney bloviating about how half the country are tax cheats
that feel “entitled” to things like food and healthcare and housing, I
got to thinking about who else in the USA doesn’t pay taxes. Then I
remembered a report by the Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf) that came
out earlier this year. It was a report that showed 26 Fortune 500
companies — PROFITABLE Fortune 500 companies, I should add — that paid
no taxes or actually got a rebate every year since 2008.

There they are on the right. Look at that list. General Electric.
Mattel. Corning. Con-way. Boeing. A plethora of energy companies.
Every one of them profitable and every one of them paying less than 0%
taxes in the years 2008-2011.

So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives and taking some damn personal
responsibility? I mean, they use a LOT of resources paid for by real
tax payers: Transportation and road systems. Police and fire
protection. Water and sewer systems. Tax breaks and so much more.

Surely you know some of the people that run these companies. You brag
endlessly about that. Chat ‘em up, will ya, Mitt? Ask them when they
are going to stop being dependent and acting so entitled about
everything.

And another thing: what about all those companies that got government
bailouts? Like Bain Capital, for example.

And what about all those monstrous banks that the taxpayers bailed
out? When are THEY going to start caring about THEIR lives and taking
personal responsibility? I have to believe you know the CEOs of these
companies, Mitt. Would you ring them up and ask them this question on
behalf of the US taxpayers who saved their asses when their whole
world was crumbling around them because they gambled with other
people’s money and created a catastrophic global recession?
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 13:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.
No, because what you call "redistribution" is nothing of the kind.
Post by Fair Play
Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts
Not happening.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives

Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
         As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
         yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.
Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts certainly doesn't help.
Speaking of not paying taxes & entitlement, how about the 26 Fortune
500 corporations that haven�t paid tax in 4 years?
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/09/speaking-of-not-paying-taxes-entit...
 September 18, 2012 in GOPocrisy, Lies, Mitt Romney
Say, Mitt, when will these guys take personal responsibility & care
about THEIR lives?
With Mitt Romney bloviating about how half the country are tax cheats
that feel �entitled� to things like food and healthcare and housing, I
got to thinking about who else in the USA doesn�t pay taxes. Then I
remembered a report by the Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf) that came
out earlier this year. It was a report that showed 26 Fortune 500
companies � PROFITABLE Fortune 500 companies, I should add � that paid
no taxes or actually got a rebate every year since 2008.
There they are on the right. Look at that list. General Electric.
Mattel. Corning. Con-way. Boeing. A plethora of energy companies.
Every one of them profitable and every one of them paying less than 0%
taxes in the years 2008-2011.
So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives and taking some damn personal
responsibility? I mean, they use a LOT of resources paid for by real
tax payers: Transportation and road systems. Police and fire
protection. Water and sewer systems. Tax breaks and so much more.
Surely you know some of the people that run these companies. You brag
endlessly about that. Chat �em up, will ya, Mitt? Ask them when they
are going to stop being dependent and acting so entitled about
everything.
And another thing: what about all those companies that got government
bailouts? Like Bain Capital, for example.
And what about all those monstrous banks that the taxpayers bailed
out? When are THEY going to start caring about THEIR lives and taking
personal responsibility? I have to believe you know the CEOs of these
companies, Mitt. Would you ring them up and ask them this question on
behalf of the US taxpayers who saved their asses when their whole
world was crumbling around them because they gambled with other
people�s money and created a catastrophic global recession?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Very well said

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Very well said
ESAD, libitard traitor.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Very well said
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Go tell your psychiatrist your meds aren't working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
        As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
        yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.
TMT
Conditional tense, but anyone who has read you knows he's right.
Fair Play
2012-10-02 04:33:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 20:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
        As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
        yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.
The cat's out of the bag.

It seems they would be quite happy to murder 47% of the American
population.

Hardly likely to impress the stable middle of the road independent
voters they need IMHO.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
they would be quite happy to murder 47% of the American
population.
Dems want the whole nation on food stamps.



http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-number-of-able-bodied-adults-on-food-stamps-doubled-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/article/2508430

CRS report: number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after
Obama suspended work requirement

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to
grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare
recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a
new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the
Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a
separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number
of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a
contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law
included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without
dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive
food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his
economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults
on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/16/obama_ag_secretary_vilsack_food_stamps_are_a_stimulus.html

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's
putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some
interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this
morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and
Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this
country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I
should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp
program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus.
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the
grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process
it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you
can get in the economy during these tough times."


As America becomes the United States of Safeway...nice...
George Plimpton
2012-10-02 04:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Yet another death threat
No.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-01 17:38:39 UTC
Permalink
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"no hope or change" <o'***@dead.economy>
wrote in message news:k4ccom$kdo$***@dont-email.me...

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked
Americans, in a 1980 presidential debate, if they were
better off than four years ago.

Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent
Jimmy Carter in the presidential election.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 17:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
I think Romney would make a fine president, but he's a wretchedly bad
campaigner, and like it or not, running a good campaign is part of the
job. It doesn't help that the Republican message is at an inherent
disadvantage when dealing with masses who want an nice life without
having to work for it. The Democrat message - "you can have it all on
someone else's effort" - has plenty of appeal to the many tens of
millions of lazy slugs in America.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 18:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
I think Romney would make a fine president, but he's a wretchedly bad
campaigner, and like it or not, running a good campaign is part of the
job.
You are so right, and he's staying the course with his campaign adviser,
which is not smart.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html
Post by George Plimpton
It doesn't help that the Republican message is at an inherent
disadvantage when dealing with masses who want an nice life without
having to work for it. The Democrat message - "you can have it all on
someone else's effort" - has plenty of appeal to the many tens of
millions of lazy slugs in America.
http://youtu.be/zJA6hn0Pnwo
no hope or change
2012-10-01 18:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-02 01:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"no hope or change" <o'***@dead.economy> wrote in message news:k4coif$lnu$***@dont-email.me...

He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
SaPeIsMa
2012-10-02 02:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-02 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a Mormon than a Muslim.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
Dano
2012-10-02 14:54:28 UTC
Permalink
"Stormin Moron" wrote in message news:UFBas.37844$***@fed15.iad...

I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus

Still better than a Chicago community organizer

====================================

Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.

WWJD?
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dano
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
====================================
Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.
WWJD?
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
William December Starr
2012-10-02 03:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Massachusetts is just a place where he spent a few years of his career.

-- wds
no hope or change
2012-10-02 03:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Massachusetts is just a place where he spent a few years of his career.
-- wds
So you admit, he's been good for Utah and Mass.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 03:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
You mean a guy who worked WITH the status quo there?

Yeah, far better to polarize like Obama has...
Post by Stormin Mormon
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
unknown
2012-10-01 01:38:52 UTC
Permalink
On 30/09/2012 3:07 PM, Fair Play wrote:

SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS - AND DELETED
Cons'rUs
2012-10-01 01:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 02:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Was that before '39 or after '41?
Gunner
2012-10-01 06:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"

The Nazis were socialists.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Moder@tor
2012-10-01 07:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Jim Wilkins
2012-10-01 11:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the
National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
It's misleading to compare the NSDAP to modern ideolological
standards. They adopted the militaristic socialism of ancient Sparta.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 14:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
It's misleading to compare the NSDAP to modern ideolological
standards. They adopted the militaristic socialism of ancient Sparta.
They were not "socialists" in *any* sense of the word from Marx onward.
Gunner
2012-10-01 19:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:21:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
It's misleading to compare the NSDAP to modern ideolological
standards. They adopted the militaristic socialism of ancient Sparta.
Somewhat true.

But they were indeed..leftwing

As all the actual cites show. Propaganda pieces from the left...in
denial...snicker...certainly dont count.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Oliver North
2012-10-01 20:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:21:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
It's misleading to compare the NSDAP to modern ideolological
standards. They adopted the militaristic socialism of ancient Sparta.
Somewhat true.
But they were indeed..leftwing
No, they were not. They were right wing.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely.
Bullshit libitarded revisionism.
Gunner
2012-10-01 19:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
elements of Far Right Thinking?

Which might those be?

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

and so forth and so on.

Perhaps you are thinking that killing the Jews was somehow
"rightwing"?

Then how do you explain the 250,000,000 murders that
Socialists/Marxists have committed over the past 90 yrs?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Not see that one before? Its rather good. Scary..but good data.

Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Oliver North
2012-10-01 20:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
elements of Far Right Thinking?
Which might those be?
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
Debunked.
Moder@tor
2012-10-02 20:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
elements of Far Right Thinking?
Which might those be?
Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing
domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society
of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.

and

Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist
movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought
against the communists in post-World War I Germany.


Rest snippaged
Homer Stille Cummings
2012-10-02 21:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
elements of Far Right Thinking?
Which might those be?
Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing
domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society
of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.
and
Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist
movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought
against the communists in post-World War I Germany.
Rest snippaged
gummer and several others, but especially gummer, have been trying this
Nazis-were-socialist gambit for a long time. It's crap from start to
finish. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, and Mussolini and the Fascists
in Italy, were virulently and violently anti-socialist. In Hitler's
case, he simply redefined the word "socialism" to mean something 100% in
opposition to what Marxian socialists did and still do mean by it; he
tried to co-opt the word. Mussolini did start out with some kind of
affinity with the socialists of his era, but it was always nothing but
expediency. Hitler and Mussolini both embraced right-wing ideals that
are anathema to socialists:

* militarism
* nationalism
* belief in racial superiority
* extreme reverence for "traditional" values
* corporatism

In addition, both utterly rejected socialist notions of class struggle.
Neither engaged in land reform, collectivization of farming or
nationalization of industry; the Nazis actually reversed earlier
nationalizations of industrial firms.

Here's what underlies gummer's and other right-wingers' attempts to
declare the Nazis and Italian Fascists "socialists": gummer and his
extremist far-right fellows harbor *all* of the beliefs and sentiments
of the far right, as listed above. However, for obvious reasons, they
don't want to be associated with Nazis and Fascists, especially the
Nazis. They point to the inauthentic link to "socialism" and exclaim,
"What? <blink blink> I can't be a Nazi - the Nazis were 'socialists',
and I hate socialism!" But:

1. They embrace *ALL* of the worst of Nazism as judged by history
2. They have to pretend they don't see that the Nazis were not
"socialists" as Marxists - and everyone else have always understood
the word.

The Nazis were not socialists or "Leftwingers" [sic], and gummer *is* a
Nazi.
no hope or change
2012-10-03 01:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
Here's what underlies gummer's and other right-wingers' attempts to
declare the Nazis and Italian Fascists "socialists": gummer and his
extremist far-right fellows harbor *all* of the beliefs and sentiments
of the far right, as listed above.
I've never seen Gunner endorser racism or have much of an opinion on
corporatism, you're making a specious indictment.
Gunner
2012-10-03 02:11:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:00:47 -0700, Homer Stille Cummings
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
gummer and several others, but especially gummer, have been trying this
Nazis-were-socialist gambit for a long time. It's crap from start to
finish. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, and Mussolini and the Fascists
in Italy, were virulently and violently anti-socialist.
Homo and the rest of the Leftwing bunch have been trying this Denial
thing for a very long time. Pathetically

http://rexcurry.net/mussolini.html


Mussolini was a socialist. Benito Mussolini was the leader of the
Socialist Party of Italy. Like many modern media Mussolinis, he was a
socialist and a journalist.
http://rexcurry.net/mussolini.html

Mussolini borrowed from American Socialists Edward Bellamy and Francis
Bellamy (author of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892) as shown in this
photograph of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Loading Image...

Mussolini borrowed much of his symbolism from American Socialists.
http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html#AMERICAN_SOCIALISTS_SPREAD_FASCISM

Also see
http://rexcurry.net/45th-infantry-division-swastika-sooner-soldiers.html

In 1908 worked in the city of Trento, which was ethnically Italian but
then under the control of Austria-Hungary. He did office work for the
local socialist party and edited its newspaper L'Avvenire del
Lavoratore ("The Future of the Worker"). He made contact with the
socialist journalist Cesare Battisti, and agreed to write for and edit
Battisti's newspaper Il Popolo ("The People") in addition to the work
Mussolini did for the Socialist Party.

Between 1912 and 1914, Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party
newspaper, "L'Avanti" (Avanti means "in front", "advance" or "forward"
or even "come in"). In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il
Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy").

He was considered by socialists to be a great writer about socialism.
He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist
socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for
expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first
dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's
(Marxist) Socialist Party.

When Mussolini differed with some Socialists it was over participation
in World War I, not over abstract theory, or economic doctrine. Many
socialists were neutralists in the First World War, whereas Mussolini
correctly foresaw that the Austro/German forces would not win the war
and therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied side and thus get a
slice of Austrian territory at the end of the war.

During World War I, Mussolini publicized what he admitted was his new
brand of socialism. http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

The f-word and the n-word are used to cover-up the history of the
deadly dogma of socialism. The USA's Pledge of Allegiance to the flag
was written by a self-proclaimed "National Socialist" and "Christian
Socialist" in the USA and the early pledge used a straight-arm salute
for the U.S. flag, and it was the origin of the salute used by the
National Socialist German Workers' Party for its swastika flag, as
discovered by the etymologist Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of
Allegiance Secrets"). http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

The swastika itself, although an ancient symbol, was sometimes used to
represent overlapping S-letters for "socialism" under the National
Socialist German Workers' Party.
Loading Image...

As German socialism's notorious flag symbol, the swastika was
deliberately turned 45 degrees to the horizontal and always oriented
in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as
Volkswagen logos. Loading Image...

American socialists bear some blame for altering the notorious symbol
used as overlapping S-letters for "socialism" under the National
Socialist German Workers Party. The swastika symbol was used by the
Theosophical Society (from 1875) during the time when the Bellamys,
Freemasons and the Theosophical Society worked together to promote
socialism. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html

On October 28, 1922, Mussolini led his "March on Rome", which brought
him to power for 23 years.

In late 1937, Mussolini continued to work with other socialists,
including a notorious member of the Wholecost (of which the Holocaust
was a part): the National Socialist German Workers Party (20 million
killed); the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (60 million killed);
the Peoples' Republic of China (50 million killed). Mussolini visited
Germany in 1937 and pledged himself to support the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party. In 1939, the National Socialist German
Workers' Party joined as allies with the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics to invade Poland in a pact to divide up Europe, spreading
WWII.

In 1938, Mussolini introduced his ‘reform of customs.’” Hand-shaking
was suddenly banned as unhygienic: a salute was to be used instead -
the right forearm raised vertically. He imposed a new march on the
Italian Army which was simply the goose-step of the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party. According to the book “A Concise History of
Italy” by Christopher Duggan, these reforms were introduced mainly to
underline ideological kinship with the National Socialist German
Workers’ Party and to impress it’s leader.

The so-called “Roman salute” (saluto romano) is as much of a fiction
as is the so-called “Roman step” (passo romano) as is the idea that
the National Socialist German Workers’ Party emulated Mussolini and
not vice versa.

All of the above contributed to the Roman salute myth (the myth that
the stiff-arm salute was an ancient Roman salute), debunked by the Dr.
Curry.
http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

The most notorious instance of Italy imitating the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party was in the racist laws imposed in November 1938.

Before and during it all (from 1892), children in the U.S. attended
government-schools where racism and segregation were mandated by law,
and where they performed a straight-armed salute to the U.S. flag, and
were forced to robotically chant a pledge written by a national
socialist who wanted to produce an “industrial army” for totalitarian
socialism as popularized worldwide in a best-selling novel.

BENITO MUSSOLINI QUOTES: EXCERPT FROM SPEECH

Rome, Italy, February 23, 1941

Follow me now please:

First, in war potentiality Germany not only did not decrease after
seventeen months of war, but increased in gigantic proportions. From
the standpoint of human losses, they have been at a minimum if
compared with the masses in action. Losses of materials were more than
compensated for by immense booty and were absolutely insignificant.

The unity of political and military command in the hands of the
Fuehrer-he who once was simple soldier and volunteer Adolf
Hitler-gives to the operations an enthusiastic, irresistible,
revolutionary and therefore National Socialist rhythm that begins with
the highest generals and goes to the humblest soldiers. Britain will
realize that once again.




The Mystery of Fascism by David Ramsay Steele

Soon after he arrived in Switzerland in 1902, 18 years old and looking
for work, Benito Mussolini was starving and penniless. All he had in
his pockets was a cheap nickel medallion of Karl Marx.

Following a spell of vagrancy, Mussolini found a job as a bricklayer
and union organizer in the city of Lausanne. Quickly achieving fame as
an agitator among the Italian migratory laborers, he was referred to
by a local Italian-language newspaper as "the great duce [leader] of
the Italian socialists." He read voraciously, learned several foreign
languages, (2) and sat in on Pareto's lectures at the university.

The great duce's fame was so far purely parochial. Upon his return to
Italy, young Benito was an undistinguished member of the Socialist
Party. He began to edit his own little paper, La Lotta di Classe (The
Class Struggle), ferociously anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, and
anti-Catholic. He took seriously Marx's dictum that the working class
has no country, and vigorously opposed the Italian military
intervention in Libya. Jailed several times for involvement in strikes
and anti-war protests, he became something of a leftist hero. Before
turning 30, Mussolini was elected to the National Executive Committee
of the Socialist Party, and made editor of its daily paper, Avanti!
The paper's circulation and Mussolini's personal popularity grew by
leaps and bounds.

Mussolini's election to the Executive was part of the capture of
control of the Socialist Party by the hard-line Marxist left, with the
expulsion from the Party of those deputies (members of parliament)
considered too conciliatory to the bourgeoisie. The shift in Socialist
Party control was greeted with delight by Lenin and other
revolutionaries throughout the world.

From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was the Che Guevara of his day, a living
saint of leftism. Handsome, courageous, charismatic, an erudite
Marxist, a riveting speaker and writer, a dedicated class warrior to
the core, he was the peerless duce of the Italian Left. He looked like
the head of any future Italian socialist government, elected or
revolutionary.

In 1913, while still editor of Avanti!, he began to publish and edit
his own journal, Utopia, a forum for controversial discussion among
leftwing socialists. Like many such socialist journals founded in
hope, it aimed to create a highly-educated cadre of revolutionaries,
purged of dogmatic illusions, ready to seize the moment. Two of those
who collaborated with Mussolini on Utopia would go on to help found
the Italian Communist Party and one to help found the German Communist
Party. (3) Others, with Mussolini, would found the Fascist movement.

The First World War began in August 1914 without Italian involvement.
Should Italy join Britain and France against Germany and Austria, or
stay out of the war? (4) All the top leaders and intellectuals of the
Socialist Party, Mussolini among them, were opposed to Italian
participation.

In October and November 1914, Mussolini switched to a pro-war
position. He resigned as editor of Avanti!, joined with pro-war
leftists outside the Socialist Party, and launched a new pro-war
socialist paper, Il Popolo d'Italia (People of Italy). (5) To the
Socialist Party leadership, this was a great betrayal, a sell-out to
the whoremasters of the bourgeoisie, and Mussolini was expelled from
the Party. It was as scandalous as though, 50 years later, Guevara had
announced that he was off to Vietnam, to help defend the South against
North Vietnamese aggression.

Italy entered the war in May 1915, and Mussolini enlisted. In 1917 he
was seriously wounded and hospitalized, emerging from the war the most
popular of the pro-war socialists, a leader without a movement.
Post-war Italy was hag-ridden by civil strife and political violence.
Sensing a revolutionary situation in the wake of Russia's Bolshevik
coup, the left organized strikes, factory occupations, riots, and
political killings. Socialists often beat up and sometimes killed
soldiers returning home, just because they had fought in the war.
Assaulting political opponents and wrecking their property became an
everyday occurrence.

Mussolini and a group of adherents launched the Fascist movement (6)
in 1919. The initiators were mostly men of the left: revolutionary
syndicalists and former Marxists. (7) They took with them some
non-socialist nationalists and futurists, and recruited heavily among
soldiers returning from the war, so that the bulk of rank-and-file
Fascists had no leftwing background. The Fascists adopted the black
shirts (8) of the anarchists and Giovinezza (Youth), the song of the
front-line soldiers.

Apart from its ardent nationalism and pro-war foreign policy, the
Fascist program was a mixture of radical left, moderate left,
democratic, and liberal measures, and for more than a year the new
movement was not notably more violent than other socialist groupings.
(9) However, Fascists came into conflict with Socialist Party members
and in 1920 formed a militia, the squadre (squads). Including many
patriotic veterans, the squads were more efficient at arson and terror
tactics than the violently disposed but bumbling Marxists, and often
had the tacit support of the police and army. By 1921 Fascists had the
upper hand in physical combat with their rivals of the left.

The democratic and liberal elements in Fascist preaching rapidly
diminished and in 1922 Mussolini declared that "The world is turning
to the right." The Socialists, who controlled the unions, called a
general strike. Marching into some of the major cities, blackshirt
squads quickly and forcibly suppressed the strike, and most Italians
heaved a sigh of relief. This gave the blackshirts the idea of
marching on Rome to seize power. As they publicly gathered for the
great march, the government decided to avert possible civil war by
bringing Mussolini into office; the King "begged" Mussolini to become
Prime Minister, with emergency powers. Instead of a desperate
uprising, the March on Rome was the triumphant celebration of a legal
transfer of authority.

The youngest prime minister in Italian history, Mussolini was an
adroit and indefatigable fixer, a formidable wheeler and dealer in a
constitutional monarchy which did not become an outright and permanent
dictatorship until December 1925, and even then retained elements of
unstable pluralism requiring fancy footwork. He became world-renowned
as a political miracle worker. Mussolini made the trains run on time,
closed down the Mafia, drained the Pontine marshes, and solved the
tricky Roman Question, finally settling the political status of the
Pope.

Cole Porter -- sang Mussolini's praises

Mussolini was showered with accolades from sundry quarters. Winston
Churchill called him "the greatest living legislator." Cole Porter
gave him a terrific plug in a hit song. Sigmund Freud sent him an
autographed copy of one of his books, inscribed to "the Hero of
Culture." The more taciturn Stalin supplied Mussolini with the plans
of the May Day parades in Red Square, to help him polish up his
pageants.

The rest of il Duce's career is now more familiar. He conquered
Ethiopia, made a Pact of Steel with Germany, introduced anti-Jewish
measures in 1938, (11) came into the war as Hitler's very junior
partner, tried to strike out on his own by invading the Balkans, had
to be bailed out by Hitler, was driven back by the Allies, and then
deposed by the Great Council, rescued from imprisonment by SS troops
in one of the most brilliant commando operations of the war, installed
as head of a new "Italian Social Republic," and killed by Communist
partisans in April 1945.

Given what most people today think they know about Mussolini, this
bare recital of facts above is a mystery story.

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Homer Stille Cummings
2012-10-03 02:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:00:47 -0700, Homer Stille Cummings
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
gummer and several others, but especially gummer, have been trying this
Nazis-were-socialist gambit for a long time. It's crap from start to
finish. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, and Mussolini and the Fascists
in Italy, were virulently and violently anti-socialist.
Homo and the rest of the Leftwing bunch have been trying this Denial
thing for a very long time. Pathetically
http://rexcurry.net/mussolini.html
Mussolini was a socialist.
He wasn't a socialist. Mussolini did not support or attempt to implement:

* nationalization of industry
* land reform
* collectivization of farming


Mussolini was not a socialist. The Italian Fascists were right wing,
not left wing.

This effort failed before it ever started, gummer.
no hope or change
2012-10-03 04:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
Post by Gunner
Mussolini was a socialist.
* nationalization of industry
He actually did that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

The regime of Benito Mussolini extended nationalisation, creating the
Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale (IRI) as a State holding
company for struggling firms, including the car maker Alfa Romeo. A
parallel body, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (Eni) was set up to manage
State oil and gas interests.
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
* land reform
Correct, he was in it for power and statism - the consolidation of many
elements.

A classic megalomaniac by any measure.

http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20Placement%20European%20History/Notes/benito_mussolini_and_fascist_italy.htm

Mussolini never tried to purge the conservatives who controlled the
army, the economy, or the state; nor did he move vigorously against
them. He controlled labor, but left big business alone and there was no
land reform. He also drew support from the Catholic Church.
Post by Homer Stille Cummings
* collectivization of farming
Much more Trotsky thing than Italian, true.

no hope or change
2012-10-03 01:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist
So fucking what?

Today's fascists are Lib Dem statists.
Gunner
2012-10-03 02:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
Not completely. They had many more elements of far Right thinking in their
philosophy than Socialist thinking. Their Party was called the National
Socialists. But that doesn't mean they were socialists across the board. No more
than the CDU (Christian Democraic Union) a conservative party in Germany, is
Democrat. Blanket statements such as yours are more often than not, wrong.
elements of Far Right Thinking?
Which might those be?
Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing
domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society
of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.
oooh...Like the Bolsevicks in 1929!

Seem to have been pretty hard on those Kulaks during the
dekulakization. Killed about 12 million of them.
Post by ***@tor
and
Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist
movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought
against the communists in post-World War I Germany.
Actually.the Volkisch german nationalist movement was socialist in
structure and intent....as was the Freikorps.

Just because they werent carbon copies of Stalins bunch..doesnt make
them anything other than socialists
Just a different brand

Even the honest (there are a few) Leftwingers understand this


http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/


Now snipping out the links again...and stamping your widdle feet and
putting your fingers in your ears and screaming NOOOOOOO! as you spin
in cicles and piss your panties doesnt change the facts of the matter.
And doing so...only makes you look stupid. And mentally ill. But
then... you are a leftwinger...so thats a given. Shrug

http://mises.org/daily/1937

http://brooksbayne.com/post/815888329/still-think-the-nazis-werent-socialists

"I see misguided American leftists still denying the fact that Nazis
were socialists. Their ignorance is based on hearsay (some know the
truth, yet lie to try and distance hardcore leftism from Nazism to no
avail) and has nothing to do with historical fact.

The Nazi (National Socialist) Party published a magazine called the
Nationalsozialistischen Briefe (National Socialist Letters). This
magazine was used by the the Nazi party leadership to espouse their
semimonthly socialist views. The National Socialist Letters magazine
was published by Otto Strasser and had Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s lead
wind-up monkey and propagandist, as its editor-in-chief.

The Nazis published the following statements about socialism and
capitalism when they presented their public “manifesto” in the
National Socialist Letters: “We are socialists; We are enemies, mortal
enemies, of the present-day capitalist economic system…We are resolved
to annihilate this system despite everything.” If you can find scanned
copies of the Nationalsozialistischen Briefe, and you know German, you
can amuse yourself by reading the socialist tripe throughout the
magazine. There’s no doubt the Nazis were socialists, despite what
American leftist revisionists would have you believe. A simple read of
anything Goebbels wrote would eliminate any questions a real seeker of
truth would have.

If you still contend that the Nazis weren’t socialists, I suggest you
perfect your swan dive into the fan blades of an industrial air
conditioner…or you can join the rest of us here in reality. "

Gunner
Post by ***@tor
Rest snippaged
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Oliver North
2012-10-01 14:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Ah..that was "ultra-left forces of fascism"
The Nazis were socialists.
The Nazis were not socialists. You've been abused over that lie before.
unknown
2012-10-01 01:37:31 UTC
Permalink
On 30/09/2012 2:39 PM, Fair Play wrote:
--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS - AND DELETED
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies,
There has been no redistribution of wealth upward. That's simply
bullshit. The increase in the share of wealth held by the rich did not
come at the expense of poor and middle income people. They never had a
claim on the increase. It never would have gone to them in the first
place - they didn't create it.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 12:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies,
There has been no redistribution of wealth upward. That's simply
bullshit. The increase in the share of wealth held by the rich did not
come at the expense of poor and middle income people. They never had a
claim on the increase. It never would have gone to them in the first
place - they didn't create it.
Obama has screwed the middle class, lowering the household income by
more than $4,000:

"Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush
By Mike Dorning - Apr 30, 2012

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W.
Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years
into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated
relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the
middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even
those who are employed.

“It started long before Obama, but he hasn’t done anything,” said John
Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from
Lebanon, Ohio. “He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he
hasn’t done anything.”

Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists
as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back
decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and
technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more
with less labor.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the
policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing
that median income for working-age households -- those headed by someone
younger than 65 -- had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during
the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama
took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of
the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by
Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
1% Get 93%

A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has
overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93
percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an
analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the
University of California at Berkeley.

On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted
incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60
percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and
$100,000, according to the U.S. Census."
--http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-05-01/obama-fails-to-stem-middle-class-slide-he-blamed-on-bush.html#print
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-01 12:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Did anyone middle or lower class get better, under the years of Obama? Most
likely, a few groups such as welfare bums, and single parents got better.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Sancho Panza" <***@xhotmail.com> wrote in message news:506988b5$0$9798$***@cv.net...

Obama has screwed the middle class, lowering the household income by
more than $4,000:

"Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush
By Mike Dorning - Apr 30, 2012

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W.
Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years
into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated
relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the
middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even
those who are employed.

“It started long before Obama, but he hasn’t done anything,” said John
Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from
Lebanon, Ohio. “He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he
hasn’t done anything.”

Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists
as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back
decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and
technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more
with less labor.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the
policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing
that median income for working-age households -- those headed by someone
younger than 65 -- had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during
the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama
took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of
the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by
Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
1% Get 93%

A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has
overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93
percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an
analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the
University of California at Berkeley.

On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted
incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60
percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and
$100,000, according to the U.S. Census."
--http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-05-01/obama-fails-to-stem-middle-class-slide-he-blamed-on-bush.html#print
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 12:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
When it comes to state-sponsored fascism, Obama is promising us four
more years of the following kind of crap:

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/10/01/these-18-keynesian-banksters-looted-the-u-s-public-treasury/
H/T Travis....click on URL above to see these crooks' pictures.
These 18 Keynesian Banksters Looted The U.S. Public Treasury!
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Volubrjotr
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion Dollars

“The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the US
Federal Reserve was recently carried out due to the Ron Paul/Alan
Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill passed in 2010. Jim DeMint, a
Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, while
leading the charge for an audit in the Senate, watered down the original
language of house bill (HR1207) so that a complete audit would not be
carried out. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, and others, opposed the audit.

What the audit revealed was incredible: between December 2007 and June
2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s
banks, corporations, and governments by giving them
US$16,000,000,000,000.00 – that’s 16 TRILLION dollars.”

It gets worse, much worse, in fact it’s downright incestuous. Let’s do a
follow up and see who, besides foreign banks and corporations from
Scotland to South Korea, received a large chunk of that money.

* Banks like JP Morgan benefited from the foreign bailouts – they are
some of the largest creditors of the bailed out countries. Instead of
having to write off their foreign losses the US Federal Reserve bailouts
enabled them to be paid in full.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigates potential
conflicts of interest. The GAO did investigate the $16 trillion giveaway
and laid out the findings but did not name names. Those names have now
been released – here’s three of the more shocking cases…

“In Dimon’s (JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon)case, JPMorgan received some
$391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time
his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending
programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion
in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide
JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and
capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky
mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP
Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.

Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former
chairman of the New York Fed‘s board of directors. Late in 2008, the New
York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank
holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal
Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. He
also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal
Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly
disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed’s
conflict of interest rules in late 2008. Unbeknownst to the Fed,
Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008
through January of 2009, according to the GAO.

In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed
board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper
Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16
billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.” Fed
Board Member Conflicts Detailed by GAO, http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

Below is the full list of 18 Fed board members who gave their own banks
four trillion dollars:

Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, has served on
the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorksince
2007. During the financial crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with
$391 billion in total financial assistance. JP Morgan Chase was also
used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for the Fed’s emergency lending
programs.In March of 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29
billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. During the financial
crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from
risk-based leverage and capital requirements. The Fed also agreed to
take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet
before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.
“I just think this constant refrain, ‘bankers, bankers, bankers’ —
it’s just a really unproductive and unfair way of treating people.
People should just stop doing that.”Jamie Dimon

Obama & G.E.’s Immelt also owner of MSM

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, served on the New York
Fed’s Board of Directors from 2006-2011. General Electric received $16
billion in low-interest financing from the Federal Reserve’s Commercial
Paper Funding Facility during this time period.

Stephen Friedman

Stephen Friedman. In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application
from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to
cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, who was chairman of
the New York Fed at the time, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of
directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed’s rules prohibited.
He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public (the Fed
provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private
contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial
institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans). After
Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman
from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed,
according to the GAO.During the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs received
$814 billion in total financial assistance from the Fed.

Sanford Weill

Sanford Weill, the former CEO of Citigroup, served on the Fed’s
Board of Directors in New York in 2006. During the financial crisis,
Citigroup received over $2.5 trillion in total financial assistance from
the Fed.

Richard Fuld

Richard Fuld, Jr, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, served on the
Fed’s Board of Directors in New York from 2006 to 2008. During the
financial crisis, the Fed provided $183 billion in total financial
assistance to Lehman before it collapsed.

James M. Wells

James M. Wells, the Chairman and CEO of SunTrust Banks, has served
on the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta since
2008. During the financial crisis, SunTrust received $7.5 billion in
total financial assistance from the Fed.

Richard Carrion

Richard Carrion, the head of Popular Inc. in Puerto Rico, has
served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
since 2008. Popular received $1.2 billion in total financing from the
Fed’s Term Auction Facility during the financial crisis.

James Smith

James Smith, the Chairman and CEO of Webster Bank, served on the
Federal Reserve’s Board of Directors in Boston from 2008-2010. Webster
Bank received $550 million in total financing from the Federal Reserve’s
Term Auction Facility during the financial crisis.

Ted Cecala

Ted Cecala, the former Chairman and CEO of Wilmington Trust, served
on the Fed’s Board of Directors in Philadelphia from 2008-2010.
Wilmington Trust received $3.2 billion in total financial assistance
from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

Robert Jones

Robert Jones, the President and CEO of Old National Bancorp, has
served on the Fed’s Board of Directors in St. Louis since 2008. Old
National Bancorp received a total of $550 million in low-interest loans
from the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility during the financial
crisis.

James Rohr

James Rohr, the Chairman and CEO of PNC Financial Services Group,
served on the Fed’s Board of Directors in Cleveland from 2008-2010. PNC
received $6.5 billion in low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve
during the financial crisis.

George Fisk

George Fisk, the CEO of LegacyTexas Group, was a director at the
Dallas Federal Reserve in 2009. During the financial crisis, his firm
received a $5 million low-interest loan from the Federal Reserve’s Term
Auction Facility.

Dennis Kuester

Dennis Kuester, the former CEO of Marshall & Ilsley, served as a
board director on the Chicago Federal Reserve from 2007-2008. During the
financial crisis, his bank received over $21 billion in low-interest
loans from the Fed.

George Jones

George Jones, Jr., the CEO of Texas Capital Bank, has served as a
board director at the Dallas Federal Reserve since 2009. During the
financial crisis, his bank received $2.3 billion in total financing from
the Fed’s Term Auction Facility.

Douglas Morrison

Douglas Morrison, was the Chief Financial Officer at CitiBank in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, while he served as a board director at the
Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank in 2006. During the financial crisis,
CitiBank in Sioux Falls, South Dakota received over $21 billion in total
financing from the Federal Reserve.

L. Phillip Humann

L. Phillip Humann, the former CEO of SunTrust Banks, served on the
Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta from
2006-2008. During the financial crisis, SunTrust received $7.5 billion
in total financial assistance from the Fed.

Henry Meyer III

Henry Meyer, III, the former CEO of KeyCorp, served on the Board of
Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland from 2006-2007.
During the financial crisis, KeyBank(owned by KeyCorp) received over $40
billion in total financing from the Federal Reserve.

Ronald Logue

Ronald Logue, the former CEO of State Street Corporation, served as
a board member of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank from 2006-2007. During
the financial crisis, State Street Corporation received a total of $42
billion in financing from the Federal Reserve.

“The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency
lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan
Stanley, and Wells Fargo.

The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at
near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts
that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were
no-bid contracts.

Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4
million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.” Mises.ca

“The Banksters are caught in a “Short Position” With Silver in the
$34.00/Ounce Range. As of September 21st, 2012, they sold “derivative
paper” into The COMEX aka; Auction House For Precious Metals to keep
Silver in the $34/ounce range. The derivative paper silver “derived” it
value from un-mined silver still in the ground, which of course is a crime.

This was all done to scare the market place into selling “REAL TANGIBLE
SILVER” so they could buy it from you and I to replace their previous
“derivative paper silver” that they sold to the COMEX to drive the price
of silver down from $50 last year etc etc etc etc.

The PUMP/DUMP game works like this:

1) They PUMP the price of silver up by closing mines and/or hoarding
silver until it is in very short supply.

2) Price goes up.

3) For example, when silver hits $50/Ounce, they illegally sell “paper
silver” to The Comex promising to replace the “paper silver” in [lets
say 6 months or when they can drive the price of silver down to
$10/ounce] with the “real marketed silver like silver coins, bars etc”

4) By selling “paper silver” back to The Comex at $50/Ounce the market
starts to see a “surplus” of silver and the price/ounce starts to go
down. This causes doubt in the minds of other investors and they start
to sell their real silver back to The Comex. This begins a snowball
effect and the price begins to fall more and more. When it gets about as
low as they can get it – they start buying silver and replace their
‘paper silver’ with the same amount of ounces they bought at lets say
$10/ounce. So they made $50.00/ounce when they sold to the market place
with ‘fake silver’ and then they replaced the ‘fake paper silver’ with
$10.00/ounce real silver and thus made $40.00/ounce profit. Not too bad
for cronies-eh? You see, WE do not get to deal with a real ‘demand &
supply’ fair market ~ it is THEY who hoard & abscond the Capitalist System.

5) But now people have rally awakened to this scheme and are holding
onto their real silver because there is very little ‘real silver’ above
ground and most silver mine have closed because the cost to bring the
metal into the market place is now ‘cost prohibitive’.

6) The banksters will either have to replace the ‘paper silver’ with
‘real silver’ or buy back the ‘paper derivative silver notes’ with their
own money.

7) The breaking point aka; short price has now been defined as well as
possible at approximately $34/ounce.

8) When industry starts screaming for the ‘real silver’ for their
products etc., the price will sky rocket. Further, real silver is a
powerful hedge against the value of the falling dollar. Dollar continues
to fall but silver will climb.” ~ Volubrjotr

Conclusion

The financial sector parasites, the banksters and their political
puppets, that have historically fed on our society have never been so
brazen. The looting of the public treasury is very much in the open – if
anyone cares to look – and done with impunity.

This is all happening because our elected politicians do not work for
the people, our elected leaders have stuck their snouts deep in the
trough of power and self indulgence, representative democracy has been
co-opted by big-moneyed interests and political parties represent their
establishment not the people’s interests.

“The lending suites that were set up for months and years, beyond the
initial crisis point, were focused on how to keep banks profitable, not
just how to keep them alive. The banks were able to access emergency
lending facilities, or change themselves into bank holding companies
overnight, to borrow at next to nothing, and if they chose, lend back to
the government at a tidy profit. You didn’t have to think at all to make
money. And you didn’t have to worry about that toxic balance sheet,
because the government was going to help you grow your way out of it.
They will also facilitate mergers to help decimate your competition. The
money that the banks borrowed for nothing could have just as easily gone
to underwater homeowners. There’s nothing special about the banks except
that they know the Fed policymakers personally.” David Dayen,
firedoglake.com

Fed loans at near-zero interest rates, incestuous bailouts, secret
waivers, no-bid contracts, and a failed representative democracy should
be on all our radar screens. Are they on yours?

*Post courtesy of Richard (Rick) Mills at Ahead of the Herd, where he
covers the junior resource sector."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...