Bitcoin Forum

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-the-four-great-hypocrisies-of-the-debt-deal

WOW! :D

I can't say I agree with everything he says but I like the passion. That's the type of shit we need to start a revolution. I'm with whoever wants to take out the bankers.

He's right, and we should all have been in the streets a long time ago.

There is an overarching sentiment on these forums that the rich deserve every penny that they have, that they earned it.

However, this is it folks. This is what laissez-faire capitalism gets you. Government isn't evil because it is inherently evil, it is evil because we didn't regulate it enough and let a "free market" of sorts take over. This deal, the American economy, and the world as a whole you see today is a direct result of unrestrained capitalism.

You what I didn't hear the whole time?

Obama

or

Democrat.

Very telling on where the bread is buttered.

He called the president out in particular, noting that he was ineffectual and undeserving of any "praise" he deserves for this.

To be fair, a large portion of this is the Republicans fault, since most of this disaster started with/was exaggerated by Nixon/Reagan and their Republican pals.

You are stuck in the Matrix my friend.  Republican/Democrat is 2 sides of the same coin owned by the same people.  Where it really counts to the people upstairs you see they always get their way.

Patriot Act and Banker Bailouts to name some of the recent ones.  It goes back way further than that though.

This.

Hugely biased commentators always look more objective when you are stuck in the left-right paradigm. Olbermann is the O'Reilly of the left.

It is not laissez-faire capitalism when the govt is running social security ponzi schemes, manipulating interest rates so it can borrow artificially cheaply, guaranteeing loans for just about everything and bailing out industry after industry dating back decades. Please get yourself educated about what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

Rise.

The State we have today, bought and paid for by corporations, is exactly the result of a deregulated free market.

Jeffk, take a guess as to who founded and elevated the first cartel corporations?

Protip: they had absolutely nothing to do with the free market/

A handful of regulations being removed while leaving the rest in place and calling it "deregulation" is like a few people dying of old age and calling it "depopulation".

Exactly.  Plus the government regulating the government is a paradox.  The regulator cannot regulate them self, the regulator.  

I think the best example of our "unregulated" economy is the NLRB currently telling boeing they cannot build a new aircraft plant in SC.  No one lost their job in WA, boeing simply wanted to hire more United States employees, and the US government has a problem with that?  I thought our leaders were concerned about jobs?  I would love to see boeing pack up and open factories in China.  Just drop all US employees.  We deserve it for letting our "leaders" telling companies not to hire us.    

Plus Keith is a goon.  No better than any other commentator (or just as worse) left or right.  I'm just glad I don't have to see him on Sunday Night Football anymore.

Numerous abuses led to regulation in the first place. It worked alright until those regulations started getting stripped away, at which point we started seeing more and more abuses.

The conclusion I draw from this is that... wait for it... regulations are bad and if we regulate anything at all in even the smallest way, we clearly can't blame capitalists for their own greed! Also, did you know that the first corporation was chartered by a government in like 1600? Therefore governments are responsible for every corporate abuse of the last four centuries. King James is still screwing us over from beyond the grave!


Yes, that was exactly what happened and you didn't mischaracterize that situation one bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html

Also, they opened the plant anyway:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/10/boeing-facility-opens-in-south-carolina-despite-opposition-from-nlrb/

Funny how in your warped worldview, rich people are evil when they are "capitalist" businessmen. But when rich people (many of them fresh from their corporate jobs, ala Hank Paulson) are in govt the are suddenly transformed into benevolent angels.


Bottomline: If you have powerful centralized control, the corporations WILL go after it and corrupt it. That is a FACT you so conveniently ignore.

Despite his communist vitriol, I actually liked him as part of the SNF broadcast  :D

Funny how I never even tried to defend any of those people. Actually if you think I'm under the impression that anyone in a position of power in the U.S. government (except maybe Bernie Sanders) gives a damn about anyone who isn't rich, you're barking up the wrong tree.



Yes that's a lovely chain email - I love when people get all of their political beliefs from those.  Or was that a Yahoo News comment you copy/pasted that from? I know I've seen it or something really close to it some place that nobody should ever go looking for facts. One actual fact that it ignores, however, is that we've been cutting the crap out of socially progressive programs for the last three decades. With that in mind, it only succeeds in proving the opposite of its claim.

Also I'm not a Democrat. And suggesting that getting elected president is the "easiest way to get and stay rich" is probably not exactly accurate.

In your post you were defending government in general (which specific type is irrelevant) and regulations. I pointed out that the corporations you so condemn will always have an incentive to take over that govt and abuse its regulatory power for their own benefit. You don't need to be president, you just need to have your buddies in the govt to make lost of money and to protect that money. eg Goldman Sachs and it's buddies at the FED & US Treasury. This is just an example to illustrate the point. Being a democrat or not is irrelevant. I am showing that govt power is the problem. You can have all the "checks and balance" & "constitutions" you want. IT WILL NEVER WORK!

Specific type of government is never irrelevant. I'd never sit here and defend feudalism or Italian fascism or whatever loony system you can come up with.

But the interesting thing about your post is that if I remove the very last line, it sounds like a potent argument for socialism. If your claim is that entities whose sole goal is money will eventually consolidate, gain power, and negatively affect government and therefore society, how is that an argument against government? Even in the complete absence of government, they'd still do whatever the hell they wanted to make money, and their actions would still negatively affect society. History has shown that companies can get away with all kinds of horrible stuff and people will still happily buy their products, so I doubt I'd rely too much on the free market running offenders out of business.

Basically, if you neutralize the government's power, who do you think is going to take it? Unless you think that power vacuum is just going to sit there chilling with nobody stepping in and every person and every corporation always acting unselfishly and in the best interests of society. 

e: looks like you edited your post after I quoted it

Geeze what a liberal hypocrite!

Bush's wars? Let's see, Obama said the troops would come home, they haven't and in fact he has expanded the war in Afghanistan so it now includes Pakistan, has started a war with Libya, admitted we have troops in Yemen, deployed the Navy to the South China Sea and who knows how many other places that the media won't cover.

As to the "Super Congress" I don't think Olbermann would like to be told he sounds like Pail but he does. I would remind him it was his Liberal Democrats that agreed to this because they want to hide their own votes on needed cuts from their own voters. Shall we remind Olbermann that it is his Liberal buddies that have not presented and voted on a budget in almost two years?

Lastly I would remind Oblermann he worked for the corrupt mass media he now attacks. Where was that voice when he was at MSNBC which has shown they are more Liberal than CNN?

I can't wait to see some Tea Party website cut parts of this rant out and post on their own web pages to support the Tea Party movement, that will serve him right.

For clarity, what exactly are you advocating? I am advocating Market Anarchism.

I'm advocating socialism. Real socialism, not "I think Obama's a socialist" or "the UK is a totally socialist country".



You're what's wrong with America. Buying into the Democrats vs. Republicans crap. Your post sounds more like someone playing a sport and trying to score as many points as he can against the other team than it does someone discussing ideas and trying to figure out what works best. You managed to use the word "Liberal" four times in as many paragraphs, as you apparently find it to be quite the devestating slur.

I am mocking Olbermann for literally attacking what he himself is, a my way or the highway far left extremist. As far as what may or may not work I don't see much of anything that works on the left and it's only covered up by the total lack of anything anyone could consider a functioning Gov't in D.C. Tell me some ideas the Left has that make any sense what so ever? Do I consider Republicans the answer, hell no but I do consider the conservative movement a damn good start.

Really? Is that what you think Olbermann is? Well if he's a far left extremist and a Democrat, what does that make a European Democratic Socialist, who's far to the left of the Democrats? And what does that make an actual socialist, who's far to the left of a Democratic Socialist?


Haha you think the United States of America has a functioning left wing. Where's the anti-war party? It's certainly not the Democrats. Where's the anti-corporate party? Again, not them. Where's the pro-public-health care/anti-private insurance party? Again, I sure don't see one. In the early '70s, Republican president Richard Nixon proposed the Medicare For All bill - it was actual, government-sponsored universal health care. In 2011, we have a Democrat proposing fake UHC where the only beneficiaries are huge insurance companies. When a Democrat's ideas now are more conservative than a Republican's ideas of 40 years ago, that should maybe show you how far to the right we've moved, and that left-wing ideas are nowhere to be found in this country.

For someone who's already complained about the mass media, you seem to love buying into their delusions rather than investigating issues for yourself and making up your own mind. If enough AM radio blowhards yell it as loud as they can, it must be true, right?

I do not see how you see that at all. If anything I don't buy into 1% of what I hear or read from mass media as factual. Hell ABC today couldn't even report the gunman story correct by saying "the shooter", what freaking shooter.

The people we have in D.C. are bought and paid for. From the day they start running to the day they get their nice little Senate seat everything they do is controlled by the money strings (with few exceptions). Obama proved that with all his anti war talk yet what happens once he is in office, he expands one war and starts two more. Did he suddenly become a "hawk" or is the more likely answer the huge military industry that has it's hands into every state was able to do some arm twisting ($$$)? I find the hypocrisy across the board extremely distasteful and give credit to any person or group that will expose that hypocrisy without themselves getting on some stage screaming I am right, you are wrong. I dislike Olbermann, Madcow and Beck alike, I show no favoritism to which is more wrong.

On the contrary, the fact that you consider people like Olbermann or Maddow to be as far to the left as Beck is to the right shows that you do swallow their narrative hook, line, and sinker. You do know that Obama was promising an Afghan troop surge while he was still on the campaign trail, right? It got overshadowed by his anti-Iraq talk, but he absolutely did. If you thought he was anti-war then, you either weren't paying attention, or you were buying the media narrative over the facts.

In fact, the very idea that there's a "liberal media" is itself a creation of the media. If you want a book that will prove this in painstaking detail and show you exactly how modern propaganda works and just how biased it is against leftist interests, I suggest Manufacturing Consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media).

We need modern socialism to reign in all the stupid Republican ideology. Libertarians I'm sorry but your ideology is just as bad as communism, and almost always leads to an aristocratically led government where the most wealthiest citizens rule over all. That is what we are seeing now and it's literally erasing the middle class right before our very eyes. Republicans,Tea Baggers, and some Libertarians rather see total collapse of the American way of life by pulling the plug on elderly people (getting rid of Medicare) , taking college away from potential students(cutting financial aide & federal grants) , taking away new roads and bridges (causing collapses, and national tragedy's), and over all making our country stupider by feeding our less privileged citizens more mistruths and lies than the eye can see. All this while some of the richest people in the world (Many Forbes 500 Billionaires) pay some of the LOWEST income taxes in the world, and not only that but hire teams of lawyers to evade even MORE in taxes. The Republicans number one goal since Obama has been elected is to make him a ONE TERM PRESIDENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU -
Mitch McConnell Reaffirms His Top Priority To Limit Barack Obama To One Term President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYjWbAU2eU
Rush Limbaugh: "I hope Obama fails"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y1uxV7Lm9o
U.S. Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann: Make Obama a One Term President...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtSMkSugKOY
The Real GOP Priority? Deny Obama A Second Term


Elections matter you guys. I know most of you stayed home in 2010 since it was a midterm, half of you probbaly didn't even know what was going on... But the Republicans took solid control of the house of representatives, and they have literally held America hostage up till this point. And you guys wonder why the DOW drops 500 points in one day? I'm sorry I am not a conspiracy theorist, this is the reality that we are living in, and someone deserves the blame for this. They have repeatedly disrespected our President, and the subtle underlying thinly veiled racism seems to show up in every meeting (Eric Cantor interrupting the President). The attitudes that have been displayed by the other side have been an unbearable experience to take in. The people of my generation need to wake up, before its to late... The answers don't lie in youtube videos made by lobying firms like the Heritage Foundation put out to make Obama look like the devil himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns2AyZpFbQQ - This a Trillion times.

http://gothamist.com/2011/07/14/republicans_blast_president_for_dec.php -Republicans Blast President For Deciding When To End A Meeting

If you don't think there is a mass left bias in media than there is no hope for you. 10 mins of MSNBC will show anyone that.

President Barack Obama, 2002, said that using military force to topple a dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed. Specifically "What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." He is now on the opposite side of that statement so was he lying then or has he been co-opted now?

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Sen. Obama on December 20, 2007

"Now is the time to redeploy" out of Iraq, "we can remove our combat brigades in the summer of 2010... we can leave only a residual force" Obama 2008

It took you a total of 9 words before you started the name calling. Any argument made by insulting the opposing side of the shows you have no basis in your claims. You continued with almost an insult per sentence.

Instead of insults what is your answer? Do you want black booted storm troopers busting down Gate's home and taking his wealth to give it to those below a certain income? Is the answer to tax those that have made themselves a success at over 50% and give that money to others in some magical hope that by doing so those people will somehow become middle class? We had a 50% tax, it lead to the crisis during the Carter years which I take it you were not around for.

Which kind of socialism? Coercive and violent socialism or voluntary and peaceful socialism?

Sick and tired of dealing with the other side. They have done enough damage thank you sir...

EDIT: By the way I love how you throw these numbers around like they mean anything. The rich right now are paying 35% at the very top marginal rate. However these people do so much trickery with their money that they end up usually paying less than some of their very own employees. It doesn't matter though, the rich are against ANY type of reforms whether they're tax increases or closing loopholes, they like it just the way it is right now, and if only they could cut even more, things would be "better".

Absolutely, however corporations are powerful, centrally controlled organizations and we must work to destroy their power as well as the power of government.  They are two heads of the same beast.

Please define "Real socialism," lest i make assumptions an needlessly strawman you.

Throw what numbers around? If you mean the 50% then please use Google and search for yourself what the tax rates were. I'll give you some help, in 1976 the marginal tax rate for a person making $200k was, you ready, wait for it, 69%, YES, that SIXTY NINE PERCENT of your income was gone.

Second as a person who knows first hand of this "trickery" you mention those so called tricks do not exist to the level the media would have you think. Those in the $100k-$1 million bracket do not get some super special hidden tax code that the liberals would have you think they get. What's worse the ones who are using trickery are some of the most liberal in this country and that's these over paid actors. They get paid through foreign corporations via foreign corporations keeping the money out of the US buying such things as million dollar homes at Lake Como or islands in the Caribbean while at the same time declaring marginal income tax in the US. Worse still those same actors tax millions in California tax credits and outright tax subsidies. Ever wonder why you don't hear an Adam Sandler, Johnny Depp, George Clooney speak up about tax codes, taxing the rich or other liberal memes when they sure take up 99% of the rest of the liberal agenda?

Here's a number for you. Of all those rich folks you and the mass media thinks don't pay taxes, 235,413 Americans made more than $1 million in 2009. 1,470 of them paid no income taxes. Some other numbers of interest in this report, in 2009 the number of tax returns filed fell by 2 million, AGI fell 7.7%. Those making over $10 million, which BTW amounts to only 8100 people, paid on average $6.5 million in Income Tax. Now this math isn't really valid but by taking the average income tax paid by the number of returns we find the 4.6 million people making $25-30k paid 6.8 million in taxes while the meager 8100 making over $10 million paid $53.5 million.

There some other good stuff in this report:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf

MSNBC has a pro-Democrat bias, which is basically a center-right bias. Again, you're letting the media make these definitions for you and you don't even realize it. We see people on TV from the bleeding edge of the far right as guests on political shows all the time, but when was the last time you saw a socialist guest on a show talking about how his preferred system of government works? Ever? Even on NPR, when there's, say, an environmental concern, analysis has shown that they run far more apologetic and often misleading interviews with the people doing the polluting than the activists complaining about it.

Basically, what you have is Fox News being so incredibly far to the right that it makes the other media look leftist to you by comparison.  But really, this bias existed even before Fox, and again I have to recommend Manufacturing Consent.


Like I said, he opposed Iraq, but not Afghanistan. All of those quotes support that. Here's Obama on Face The Nation in July of 2008 advocating for the Afghan troop surge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6InDwaWFc


Seriously? THOSE DAMN HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS? That's what you're going with?

When people on the left complain about the rich, they're generally not complaining about some guy that makes $100k a year or whatever - they're complaining about the multi-billionaires who get most of their earnings from capital gains, taxed at a whopping 15%. They already have more money than God, and yet, as a famous example, Warren Buffet claimed that his secretary gets taxed at a higher rate than he does. They also have a huge hand in controlling public policy in the U.S. Most of 'em ain't too liberal, and they wield a whole lot more influence than Adam Sandler.

I'd actually like to know who you listen to when it comes to politics and current events. Like, what opinion columnists, authors, TV personalities, radio hosts, whatever. Just curious.


Closer to socialism as defined by Marx or Lenin, further from socialism as a shorthand for European Social Democracy, as it so frequently and misleadingly gets used today. Basically, I think that the workers should control the means of production, and that too often the people who work the hardest in our current society are the ones getting paid the least.

Since you ignored me, let me ask again...


Which kind of socialism? Coercive and violent socialism or voluntary and peaceful socialism?


If you made $375k a year and you "owed" $100k on that, you'd know how much that stings and you'd get the feeling that the hate for the rich goes a lot deeper than just the billionaires. It's a fucking joke and I resent it like hell.

I'm letting the media define my definitions and then you come back with "Fox News being so incredibly far to the right"? Please, pot calling the kettle black there dude. If you think MSNBC is Center-right then your the one that needs to open your ears because your not hearing the undertones, the quick quotes and jabs especially by those like Maddow

Yes he supported more troops in Afghanistan and even said he would go into Pakistan but only in order to go after those specifically tied to 9-11. Since then he has expanded his war in Afghanistan to be a war against the Taliban not Al-Qaeda and if you listen to his speeches, which he seems to need to give daily, he rarely mentions Al-Qaeda and always says Taliban or Terrorist. At the same time he said he opposed using troops to overthrow another gov't or in any way that did not have a direct link to this nations security. Now that he is in office he is attacking Pakistan nearly daily, we have troops in Yemen, we are bombing Libya and we will be in South Sudan next. You cannot take his pre-president stance on using the military and look at where he is today and make the two equate.

I would argue that is not true at all. Those that are complaining the most are clearly complaining about the sub million "rich" people as much as those making 10 million. Why are Reid and Obama so damn crazy about the $250k/yr number, does anyone here really think $250K/yr is rich?

Buffett and Soros are as liberal as you can get and that's who has the left ear of D.C., come on...

Let me poise a question. We have a few miners that are sitting on what, thousands if not tens of thousands of BTC while the bulk of miners on the other hand have 5-100 coins if they have been around awhile. Should the system be setup to tax those miners with more than 100 BTC at 60%, the "System" keeping 30% of that for providing the system, give 25% to those with less than 10 BTC while those in the 10-100BTC range get 5%? That would equal out the system wouldn't it, make it a fair system?

Maybe the Bitcoin system itself should tax those miners based on hash rate so that anyone with over 300M/h has his hashes divided among all those systems mining at under 300M/h? This way I can mine with a CPU yet my overall hash rate would be 200M/h because those systems pushing 8000 M/h will pay for the overall good of all, I'm sure those miners feel it is their duty, their obligation to spend their dollars for hardware and electricity so for the good of all we would all have more BTC?

"Oh poor me, I just made almost 400 Thousand dollars this year and have to pay 25% tax which is HALF of what they are paying in Germany and other countries like the USA. Poor me..."

No, I call FNC far right based on the fact that no other news source in the entire world comes close to how conservative they are based on exactly what they espouse. We're talking about a network that once blasted Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for teaching kids to share. And tried to smear the president as an elistist for using Grey Poupon mustard on his hamburger. This isn't exactly subtle propaganda here. It's hitting-you-over-the-head-with-a-baseball-bat propaganda.

"Quick quotes and jabs" have zero to do with MSNBC's political slant. Yes, they are pro-Democrat/anti-Republican, generally. But Democrats aren't the left. Look how hard of a time you have in understanding this.


What the hell? Why do you equate what politicians are saying with what actual people on the left think? Politicians aren't people, and the ones you name aren't even on the left. It's amazing how solidly your perspective is shaped by mainstream media. I see you ignored my question about what you read, which either means you read nothing, or whatever you read is so embarassingly bad that you know I'd laugh at it.

And I'm telling you as someone on the left that we generally aren't angry at all about some doctor that makes $150k a year. He doesn't shape public policy.

At the same time, we aren't pulling out our tiny violins for him having to pay 25% taxes because we know damn well what it's like to live on $20k a year and it's hard to feel sorry for that guy when there are people who can't even afford to heat their homes in the winter. I notice those people never seem to come up in your posts. Only the hardships of the poor folks who might have to sell their boat to pay for their kids' private school.


Sorry, I was responding to so much last time that I overlooked your quote. Peaceful socialism would be ideal. But nothing resembling socialism, peaceful or otherwise, is ever going to happen in the U.S. in my lifetime, so it's all basically hypothetical.



Awww poor little fella. Look, don't you just feel so bad for this guy who may or may not be resented by someone somewhere while he relaxes in his pool in his gated community? Because we all know that nobody ever hates on the poor for being poor, and that they suffer no consequences for that.

The funny thing is that you'll probably perceive this post as more of that stinging hate because you don't even know what actual hate feels like. What I don't understand is how someone can have it better than 99.9% of the people in the entire world and still want more.

@rainingbitcoins Not going to bother quoting as I would not know where to start, you prove no points and just spout the same rhetoric. If you don't think Soros is far left and runs this country as much as the military machine then oh well.

I did notice you didn't really respond to my question that wouldn't it be fair for those mining with 10G/h have to share those hash rates with those mining with 100M/h or hell some CPU miner out there. I mean that's what your proposing we do to the tax code.

I'll also answer you but I see no reason to as it makes no matter but I read or have read everything from the Bible, Atlas Shrugged, 1984, tons of history, to modern daily publications from the primary papers and such like NYT, Washington Post, WSJ and so forth and of course as any good BTC miner and good geek should, Daniel Suarez. Pleasure reading I don't do much in the way of books anymore but I read the entire Foundation series starting at 15 and by 18 had gone through Lord of the Rings at least twice not to mention all of Orson Scott Card's Ender and Dune series then over to some Clancy and Ludlum. As to what's on the TV, not much. It may be on but I am rarely paying attention as the quality of what they call entertainment or news is pathetic. I will hit CNBC, MSNBC and Fox in the AM, mainly CNBC and MSNBC, on Sunday I catch This Week but other than that it's on as background noise or playing something for the kids, or maybe I've got Netflix running (It Crowd). I'd say you won't find many people as rounded in what I have covered either through school or for pleasure earlier in my life and now with less time for reading anything not job related I find I tend to try and catch things on audio book, lots of listing to old CBS radio, Sherlock Holmes and other mystery stuff and of course probably 12 hours a week of various tech podcast (thank you Audacity and change tempo, BTW anyone know a tool to batch podcast tempo change).

"I've read the full works of Ayn Rand plus several right-wing authors and the Bible. I guess you could say I'm well-rounded!"

Good Lord. No wonder you think anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh is pratically communist. You've never spend two seconds listening to anything anyone on the left has ever said outside of centrist politicians and their empty platitudes. Thanks for answering, I guess, but seriously that is about as far from well-rounded as you can get. You have no concept of anything to the left of a Democrat because you don't even know it exists. That's actually really sad, and a testament to power of modern American propaganda.

+1
I am well versed in conservative literature and ideology. Most of their ideology consists on if's and maybes and no actual problem solving.

Here's a brief example,

Maybe IF we give the richest people in America all their money back maybe they'll create jobs for the less fortunate!
Maybe IF we get rid of social welfare programs like commie food-stamps, and socialist medicare people will finally get jobs with the money that we gave to the rich people!
Maybe IF these people are now able to get mediocre jobs from their working overloads, we can get then shove them into a nice house with a variable interest rates and these people will finally be living the America dream!
Maybe IF we kick every single illegal immigrant out of this country, all of a sudden lazy Americans will get up and start doing these "crappy" jobs that all these illegal immigrants are more than happy to perform...
Maybe IF we start a war with this country, all their people will love us and we will bring freedom to that part of the world thus making new investors who will buy into our crap!

God I could go on for about 5 hours. People conservatism/hardcore libertarianism is all about hypothetical voodoo ideology that has been proven NOT TO WORK , and nothing about actually FIXING PROBLEMS. Which is why when America let these Tea Baggers back into the house of representatives, and 8 months later we are going BACK to another recession, and have created 0 jobs since they have been obstructing everything that the president suggests.

Just keep insulting and misquoting, it shows you, like most on the left, have no argument, just insults and name calling.

I advocate coercive. You owe a portion of what SOCIETY gives you back. Anyone taking much more out of the system, like the rich earning tons of money off labor but refusing to pay a minor amount of that back in taxes is a parasite.

The solution to the debt crisis is to raise taxes to pay it off. If you keep paying the minimums on your credit card and the balance keeps increasing, it won't be long before the bank owns you.

That is the problem with the no revenue increase debt deal that was made, the election-conscious government has been perverted by listening to a vocal minority of these no-new-taxes tea partiers. The greatest trick the devil ever played was getting the poorest and most ignorant of the Rush/Hannity/Beck listeners to rally for less taxes on the rich.

Pretty much this.

+1 for ownage

What more can you say to someone who is so proud of such a paper-thin understanding of the world, with no desire to increase that understanding if it means being exposed to something that he doesn't automatically agree with or isn't right smack dab in the middle of the mainstream?

At least a lot of the people around here seem curious about these things and try to challenge themselves, read from independent sources, entertain alternative viewpoints, stuff like that. If they don't come to the right conclusions, well, at least they tried. You're apparently content to zone out on the mindless grey expanse of TV news and actually take it seriously, so I kinda feel like I'm wasting my time here.

Wait we're the ones with the insults?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuGY7ELkCyE&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c&feature=player_embedded&list=PL18E94D79CF7CB44D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8xptCpnNh4&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AGZlwLVKU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWRyMCxRs8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzWXzuoKjSU&feature=related

Jesus Christ I could go on for days. I think Republicans are just people who haven't had the privileged or time to see the truth...

Hey JBDive, I came across an article that may interest you. Nothing really special about it, I guess - similar articles are posted all the time, but it should at least go to show you that what I'm saying is grounded in reality.

Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal) (http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/05/obama_fdr_debt_ceiling).

Excerpt:

Do you see why, when you call people like this "far left", people might not take you seriously? It's like the bar for having that leftist designation moves a little bit to the right every year. 40 years ago you could be a Republican in favor of universal health care. Today, you can argue for the privatization of anything and everything and still have people accuse you of being a radical leftist. Does that maybe seem a little... strange to you? Or have you internalized it so far that you can't see anything odd about it at all?

As defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto?

Do you see why it's useless talking to you, you hear what you want to hear. Did I ever say Obama was far left?

Again with the insults, this time it was in your first sentence not to mention completely ignored the fact that I said I don't watch TV other than the couple of shows I mentioned for maybe 4 hours a week total and of those sources one is Left and you admitted they were left. Do you not see how lame any argument is when you attack the other speaker with insults? You also make so many assumptions it's amazing, your leaps from my statements that I must be a Far Right, Card Carrying Republican were wrong and unfounded by the statements presented.

Son I have read, studied and likely participated in far more content then you will consume by the time your 30. 30, hmm how did I come around to that number? I am willing to bet your around 24, never had a corporate level job, never managed more than 2 people and probably live on the west coast but I'm reaching there however you sound like your right out of Seattle or Portland.

You sound like you are full of shit - your left-wing source is "someone who has 'admitted' they were left wing"? Also most of your replies boil down to "stupid liberal" or "you sound like you are from Seattle/Portland/some other place where hypothetical dumb liberals come from".

edit: What I'm saying is they think you are parroting right-wing TV hosts because every single thing you say is basically something Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would say.

I didn't admit any of those news sources were left. I said that MSNBC has a pro-Democrat bias, which is decidedly not left. I'm pretty sure I said that more than once.

But yeah I'm totally sorry if I made assumptions based on some guy bounding into the thread and going off his rocker about those durn Hollywood libruhls. I don't know how I ever could have made such a mistake. You still didn't address my points at all, by the way - you picked out the insults and pretended to be hurt after you spent half the thread hurling various insults of your own.


You're really bad at assuming things!

I'm 33, and I'm a team leader (not a big team, but still) at a Fortune 500 company on the East Coast.  I've never even been to Seattle or Portland or anywhere west of Nevada in my life. Why? Did some talk show host tell you that that was where the most liberal of those dang liberals live with their long hair and dirty clothes and marihuana cigarettes?

But no, go ahead and tell me all about how much "content" you devour and how well-read you are, guy who lists Tom Clancy among his favorite authors and seems pretty proud of the fact that, unlike his associates, he was able to make it all the way through that dense symbolist tome called The Hunt for Red October.


Yeah, I mean, it's not like the stuff he says is obscure or something else that's easy to mistake - it's straight off of Fox & Friends, out of a Moonie Times editorial, or the comments section of my local newspaper's web site.


Kind of, but I guess my ideal environment would be halfway in between that and libertarian socialism.

Then I am calling you out as a liar and this conversation is over. I have read your past post and socialist slant obviously tainted by any number of convicted criminals, and see where you are coming from and there is no getting you to see the error of those ways. I mean really, Omali Yeshitela? I have also found some tidbits which clearly show you are lying now or lied in other post and from the over all tone of your post I would say your lying now when you say your 33 and likely lying that you work in a corporate envelopment, how could you take part in what you so deeply disagree with.

"When I was born, the Simpsons had only been on the air for a scant four years, and a now long-forgotten band by the name of Pearl Jam topped the charts..." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34142.msg427362#msg427362 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34142.msg427362#msg427362)

This remind you of anything? It should. You posted this just a few days ago and the fact you were so specific in when you were born it would be hard for me to believe you were lying about it which makes you 18, 19 depending on the month you were born. The Simpsons first aired in 1989, Pearl Jam first entered the charts in 91 with major hits in 1993 to 1995.

oh and anyone that thinks what Mao did was in any way a good thing or in the right direction and the loss of life was unfortunate need to seriously reconsider their thinking. Mao and his policies killed what, 100 million, even conservative numbers put it at 50 million.

Hahahahah this is brilliant. Why don't you try clicking on that post instead of just viewing it in the search results.

(Hint: I was making fun of 17-year-old Atlas, Detective Sees No Context.)


Yeah, I don't know if you've noticed what country we live in, but it's not like I have a lot of choice. It's pretty laid-back for a corporate environment, though, and I do all that I can to avoid office politics and other BS.