lutherblsstt
Guest
The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. (what recent President has?)
The Obama Deception
The Obama Deception
It still carries too much of a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory type for me to watch the whole way through. When the narrator/pretend journalist is at the hotel and is spastic about "now they are watching me", I couldn't continue watching it.
That said, duh. Each president has their own agenda, their own ideas of what is best for america. "what recent president has", probably "what president ever really has".
As we are a nation of x number of people, there is no 1 simple answer that is best for all of us on almost any topic. You will disappoint some people when you make others happy. Medicare Part D providing drug benefits for seniors is great if you are a senior, it sucks if you are a taxpayer. Whereas giving a lower increase in social security payments for the year sucks if you are a senior, but is nice if you are a taxpayer....
Here he is on Fox,they say he has been pretty accurate in the past.Ah, would this be the same Gerald Celente who incorrectly predicted John Kerry's win in 2004, and myriad other completely unfounded and incorrect assumptions?
This video is a little far fetched, but a second revolution is not too far away. We no longer live within a constitutional government. It's apparent from your last two posts that you have no idea what's happening right under your nose.lol revolution? ROFL! more politically biased alarmists
It appears to me, particularly when considering events which are happening right under my nose, that capitalism is being destroyed as an economic ideology quite adequately by its supposed proprietors - and that is giving the benefit of the doubt that free-market capitalism does, or has within the last fifty years, exist[ed]....the destruction of capitalism.
Exactly.This video is a little far fetched, but a second revolution is not too far away. We no longer live within a constitutional government. It's apparent from your last two posts that you have no idea what's happening right under your nose.
Obama just forced the CEO of a private company (GM) to resign. Does that sound like a free-market to you? No, it sounds like the destruction of capitalism.
(sniff)(sniff)..whats that i smell? o wait..i no..IT'S SOCIALISM! i said this guy was a socialist ever since I heard him talk for the first time. yeah he's a great public speaker...but so was Hitler.Obama just forced the CEO of a private company (GM) to resign. Does that sound like a free-market to you? No, it sounds like the destruction of capitalism.
Barak Obama is just like George W. Bush. He's an amiable putz who will serve whatever special interests put him where he is.The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. (what recent President has?)
It still exists, in the rubber dog **** industry, in the computer industry, and in qute a few others as well, markets that are for the most part free and unhindered. It doesn't exist and hasn't for a while in markets like energy, autos, banking, health care, etc.It appears to me, particularly when considering events which are happening right under my nose, that capitalism is being destroyed as an economic ideology quite adequately by its supposed proprietors - and that is giving the benefit of the doubt that free-market capitalism does, or has within the last fifty years, exist[ed].
Nope. It's a money maker for everyone who gets to live off the tax payer tit while trying to make the business work while completely divorcing it from the profit loss test. Kind of like some old stupid hag paying a group of puppeteers to 'animate' the corpse of her dead husband. Never forget, someone is making out.Taking over failing businesses that ask to be taken over is a money losing proposition for everyone...but don't let the obvious whack y'all in the head or anything.
sooooo wrong. The socialists here will take over anything they CAN, as they are already financed by the media + entertainment industry, plus bleeding hearts. And taking over failing ones and keeping them alive gives more justification to taking over others "to protect the children". As a GM shareholder, i'd like you to tell me where there was a vote, or any sort of official survey that you got that "so did most of GM's stockholders". He's been revoted in many times, and has a decent vision.Nope. Socialists only take over businesses/capitalism when it's doing really well so they can finance their flawed ideaology..ala Hugo Chavez and oil. As a matter of semantics..Obama "asked" that the head of GM step down...but so did most of GM's shareholders.
Taking over failing businesses that ask to be taken over is a money losing proposition for everyone...but don't let the obvious whack y'all in the head or anything.
For all intensive purposes, in industries of consequence [as you have said here] free-market capitalism is a Chimera. I grow tired of both pro-capital/pro-socialism sentiment, as well as the tin-hat musings of the negative determination of each debate, for precisely that reason; there are individuals on each side of the debate wildly generalizing two systems of Political Philosophy without a clue what historically constitutes either. People think they are defending "Capitalism", when, really, they are defending retarded forms of pro-capital bureaucratic oligarchies.It still exists, in the rubber dog **** industry, in the computer industry, and in qute a few others as well, markets that are for the most part free and unhindered. It doesn't exist and hasn't for a while in markets like energy, autos, banking, health care, etc.
Also, I mean retarded in the literal sense of slowed and/or mitigated, not mentally disabled.For all intensive purposes, in industries of consequence [as you have said here] free-market capitalism is a Chimera. I grow tired of both pro-capital/pro-socialism sentiment, as well as the tin-hat musings of the negative determination of each debate, for precisely that reason; there are individuals on each side of the debate wildly generalizing two systems of Political Philosophy without a clue what historically constitutes either. People think they are defending "Capitalism", when, really, they are defending retarded forms of pro-capital bureaucratic oligarchies.
Not "bowling like i was in the special olympics" retarded?Also, I mean retarded in the literal sense of slowed and/or mitigated, not mentally disabled.
That was quite the gaffe, was it not? I could honestly care less, though, as I am neither an American or a Democrat.Not "bowling like i was in the special olympics" retarded?
I was wondering, "Does he know cameras are rolling?" That is something my eighteen year-old brother would say!it was pretty funny. really a 130s isn't that horrifying of a score either.
You could just say neo mercantilism, fascism, or socialism. Leads to less headaches. In fact if you haven't already you should check out one of Hans-Herman Hoppe's first works in English. He pretty much reasons out that there are only two systems of social organization, socialism and capitalism, and that all systems that exist are right/left wing mixes to varying degrees of each. Doesn't take the nuances away, but it does make the framework with which you view the world a bit clearer.For all intensive purposes, in industries of consequence [as you have said here] free-market capitalism is a Chimera. I grow tired of both pro-capital/pro-socialism sentiment, as well as the tin-hat musings of the negative determination of each debate, for precisely that reason; there are individuals on each side of the debate wildly generalizing two systems of Political Philosophy without a clue what historically constitutes either. People think they are defending "Capitalism", when, really, they are defending retarded forms of pro-capital bureaucratic oligarchies.
It is funny you mention that, as I was going to add on the "quadratic" element of political philosophy to my previous point - that is, as you have said, that there exists only pro-capital/anti-socialism, and pro-socialism/anti-capital [...or principle to that of...] derivatives.You could just say neo mercantilism, fascism, or socialism. Leads to less headaches. In fact if you haven't already you should check out one of Hans-Herman Hoppe's first works in English. He pretty much reasons out that there are only two systems of social organization, socialism and capitalism, and that all systems that exist are right/left wing mixes to varying degrees of each. Doesn't take the nuances away, but it does make the framework with which you view the world a bit clearer.
wrong, they were enough to take away from any other content, because I stopped watching it at that point. I hate self aggrandizing or trying to romanticize to try and make things seem more important. Its called "lying", and the rest of what you say looses credibility at that point.With that said, there were a couple cheesy moments in the movie, not enough to take away from the blunt reality of it though
to bail the company out under that condition...get rid of the dude who ****ed it up. sounds logical in my book.This video is a little far fetched, but a second revolution is not too far away. We no longer live within a constitutional government. It's apparent from your last two posts that you have no idea what's happening right under your nose.
Obama just forced the CEO of a private company (GM) to resign. Does that sound like a free-market to you? No, it sounds like the destruction of capitalism.
First off, they shouldn't be bailing out failing businesses.to bail the company out under that condition...get rid of the dude who ****ed it up. sounds logical in my book.
When the "Yankee capitalists" go hat-in-hand to the government for a hand out of the hole they've dug for themselves, they've abandoned any pretense to the jobs they once held. They have de-facto nationalized themselves, sticking the public - via their representatives - with an ugly mess of which the "Yankee capitalists" wash their hands like Pilate while making sure they take everything that's not nailed down on their way out (Lovely $20,000,000 severance pkg there, Mr. GMCEO - *GOSH* it's lucky it wasn't tied to your performance! How did THAT happen?)Exactly.
This story came out today:
"Obama asserts gov't control over the auto industry
AP - President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC."
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_autos
Call me a traditionalist, but when the president of the United States can dictate who heads the biggest industrial company, there ain’t much left to Yankee capitalism..
Why do tools continue to call a LOAN a handout?When the "Yankee capitalists" go hat-in-hand to the government for a hand out of the hole they've dug for themselves, they've abandoned any pretense to the jobs they once held.
So, monolithic "socialist" and "capitalist" economics are the ONLY BASES of social organization? Man, that's too easily falsifiable. Completely ignores issues such as scarcity & abundance, the role of power - pretty much everything we know about pre-"Wealth-of-Nations" social systems & pre-industrial societies.It is funny you mention that, as I was going to add on the "quadratic" element of political philosophy to my previous point - that is, as you have said, that there exists only pro-capital/anti-socialism, and pro-socialism/anti-capital [...or principle to that of...] derivatives.
Isn't that what *BANKS* are for, bro?Why do tools continue to call a LOAN a handout?
So banks are constantly giving handouts? The CRA forced banks to write loans to subprime lenders, the SBA uses government funds to back loans, your freakin mortgage is probably backed by Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac who were always governmental entities, your savings account is backed by FDIC. Not sure I understand your point as the government has for a long time been involved in banking, bro.Isn't that what *BANKS* are for, bro?
Exactly,why can't his followers understand this?Barak Obama is just like George W. Bush. He's an amiable putz who will serve whatever special interests put him where he is.
Not quite. Capitalism and socialism are two ends of a spectrum of organization. So you have 'pure' capitalism, absolute protection of private property and freedom of trade, 'pure' socialism, absolute common ownership and planning of trade, neither system of which is practically maintainable in reality, and then what lies in between. Hoppe being Hoppe, naturally he starts at the pure capitalism end of things and defines intrusions into that ideal as socialist.So, monolithic "socialist" and "capitalist" economics are the ONLY BASES of social organization? Man, that's too easily falsifiable. Completely ignores issues such as scarcity & abundance, the role of power - pretty much everything we know about pre-"Wealth-of-Nations" social systems & pre-industrial societies.
Here it is, just released apparently too.I'll see if I can find something by Hoppe (how about a rec, CBD?), but it'll have to be real compelling.
Because a LOAN is a temporary handover of funds to be paid back at interest determined by the length of the loan and the availability of real savings to fund it for that term. In other words the government is incapable of giving a loan, just as it is incapable of producing a car, at least incapable of doing both for profit. Even if they take back more than was given or sell the car for more than the inputs cost, since there was no assessment of opportunity cost for the provision of the inputs - steel, labor, plastic, real savings, etc. - there's no way to know if the resources would have been better used elsewhere. The end result is not the outcome of economizing behavior. The end result is a guaranteed loss over time. Therefore LOAN = handout.Why do tools continue to call a LOAN a handout?
Then our entire financial system is based on handouts as againBecause a LOAN is a temporary handover of funds to be paid back at interest determined by the length of the loan and the availability of real savings to fund it for that term. In other words the government is incapable of giving a loan, just as it is incapable of producing a car, at least incapable of doing both for profit. Even if they take back more than was given or sell the car for more than the inputs cost, since there was no assessment of opportunity cost for the provision of the inputs - steel, labor, plastic, real savings, etc. - there's no way to know if the resources would have been better used elsewhere. The end result is not the outcome of economizing behavior. The end result is a guaranteed loss over time. Therefore LOAN = handout.
The CRA forced banks to write loans to subprime lenders, the SBA uses government funds to back loans, your freakin mortgage is probably backed by Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac who were always governmental entities, your savings account is backed by FDIC.
You are not allowed to agree with me.Exactly,why can't his followers understand this?
Yes, it is. That's the basic purpose of the Fed, to provide access to money and credit at below market prices. It's just a back door method of wealth redistribution. When it becomes impossible to steal via that method the government reverts to direct theft. All the money you see getting funnelled to these companies via bailouts, TARP, etc., is money and credit they would have gotten anyway had it been possible to keep the supply of money and credit flowing. We would just have paid for it via taxes and devalued wages down the line. But real things rule in the economy. A price control below market means an eventual shortage, whether it's the price of ice, oreos, or credit being fixed.Then our entire financial system is based on handouts as again
I feel the same way about himYou are not allowed to agree with me.
Another reason though is that it allows the successful people who support him to assuage their guilt over what was done in the past to blacks, so he can do no wrong.Group think is your answer. Watch Bill Maher at all? I still tune in occasionally to see what he's up to. Salman Rushdie was on, when asked how what Obama is doing is any different from what Bush did he foundered and basically just fell back on insulting Bush. It's not a question of right or wrong for such people, it's a question of Us vs Them. That's why most Democrats will be sucking BHO's cock no matter how neonconny he gets in policy, just the way most Republicans let GWB shaft them up the ass with some of the biggest market interventions in history, acts that if undertaken by a Democrat would have given the Republicans seizures. It is, sadly enough, the same psychology that dictates sporting team loyalties. As if fans of team X or Y actually get anything or accomplish anything themselves if 'their' team wins. It's mere tribalism. They are not Us, therefore they are bad and Us are good. Actions taken by Us are good even if same action taken by They is bad. Ugh, Ugh.
Indeed, the so-called "pre-capital" societies are appreciably more difficult to categorically analyze than contemporary societies: while the means of value production - mostly agrarian in nature - were most certainly collectivized, such means were subordinated to the wishes of the highest class strata, and; contrarily, currency also existed as a relativizing commodity, but was most primarily a method of exchange, rather than a value creator itself [vis-a-vis being so-called, "money capital", with the technical-rational taxation systems adherent thereto].So, monolithic "socialist" and "capitalist" economics are the ONLY BASES of social organization? Man, that's too easily falsifiable. Completely ignores issues such as scarcity & abundance, the role of power - pretty much everything we know about pre-"Wealth-of-Nations" social systems & pre-industrial societies.
I saw that episode, actually, and it was disappointing to see how much of a parrot Rushdie was. Great author, poor social commentator.You are not allowed to agree with me.
Just kidding.
Group think is your answer. Watch Bill Maher at all? I still tune in occasionally to see what he's up to. Salman Rushdie was on, when asked how what Obama is doing is any different from what Bush did he foundered and basically just fell back on insulting Bush. It's not a question of right or wrong for such people, it's a question of Us vs Them. That's why most Democrats will be sucking BHO's cock no matter how neonconny he gets in policy, just the way most Republicans let GWB shaft them up the ass with some of the biggest market interventions in history, acts that if undertaken by a Democrat would have given the Republicans seizures. It is, sadly enough, the same psychology that dictates sporting team loyalties. As if fans of team X or Y actually get anything or accomplish anything themselves if 'their' team wins. It's mere tribalism. They are not Us, therefore they are bad and Us are good. Actions taken by Us are good even if same action taken by They is bad. Ugh, Ugh.
"He governs so well..."Another reason though is that it allows the successful people who support him to assuage their guilt over what was done in the past to blacks, so he can do no wrong.
Are you sure it's not just a relative judgement? I mean I don't think Bush deserved to be demonized, but if there was one major casualty of his presidency it was the English language. As long as you let Obama stay vague and talk about hope and **** he sounds good. It's specifics that bog him down and make him stutter. Bush couldn't read the instructions off a box of q-tips without stuttering, and probably would have ended up jamming one of them up his ass in the end anyway.Greatest orator of our time? not even close, and I think i'm the only person who believes that statement is the semantic equivalent to "he speaks so well for a black man"
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
How Hillary used Obama’s FBI to illegally spy and start a coup. | Politics | 135 | ||
Obama's speech tonight | General Chat | 8 | ||
I wonder if Trump will have any Smokescreens, like Obamacare was just a Smokescreen | Politics | 1 | ||
OBAMA | General Chat | 57 | ||
Obama Deception Video | Politics | 73 |