Keith Olbermann Special Comment On Debt Deal

[GideonGono]

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

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

[rainingbitcoins]

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

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".

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.

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.

[JBDive]

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

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".

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.

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.

[rainingbitcoins]

I am mocking Olbermann for literally attacking what he himself is, a my way or the highway far left extremist.

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?

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.

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?

[JBDive]

I am mocking Olbermann for literally attacking what he himself is, a my way or the highway far left extremist.

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?

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.

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.

[rainingbitcoins]

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.

[FlipPro]

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

[JBDive]

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.

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

[JBDive]

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.

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.

[NghtRppr]

I'm advocating socialism.

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

[FlipPro]

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.

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.

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".

[Babylon]

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

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.

[GideonGono]

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

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

[JBDive]

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.

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.

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".

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

[rainingbitcoins]

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

[NghtRppr]

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

I'm advocating socialism.

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

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%.

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.

[JBDive]

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.

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.

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

[JBDive]

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

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.

[JBDive]

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?

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 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?

[FlipPro]

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

I'm advocating socialism.

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

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%.

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.

"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..."