Fascism + Solutions

[ralis]

Interesting. So:

1) You can dismiss and abort ANY discussion merely by labeling it "anti-Semitic?" Does this also work with any other "anti-X" too, like say, anti-Iranian, anti-North Korean, anti-Chinese, anti-Islamic or anti-GMO?

2) You just supported a post with a historical example...that you had just dismissed as "anti-Semitic?"

 

I don't support the post at all. It is filled with conspiratorial anti-semitic remarks. I was making a point in regards to the worst of anti-semitism during the genocide in Europe and how Hitler responded to the Communist Party.

 

Don't twist what I write!

Edited April 5, 2013 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

I think what Vortex was trying to point out was that you inadvertently supported to some degree what WWROA said..

 

Communism was developed by Karl Marx and is a rebranding of previous Jewish thought + heavily supported by followers of Judaism.


SB: To which your post mentions what most (I presume) modern scholars deem historically accurate and wouldn't dispute:

The reason for the holocaust was that in Munich there was an attempted takeover of the local government by the Communist Party. Most of the leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish. For that very reason is why Hitler launched his crusade against the Jews. That is what makes Hitler an extreme rightist fascist. Why not make historically accurate statements as opposed to anti-semitic rants.

 

 

That's what Vortex was pointing out:

 

 

So I would say to WWROA if he would actually want to discuss things reasonably:

 

1. If I were to wade into such a touchy-subject I would be asking for an in-depth analysis of exactly how Karl Marx's Communism was re-branded Jewish theology. You have to show how Communism is Talmudic, Rabbinic, etc.. Unless they have a separate Ideology from that of their historic-theology? If so I'm unaware of it as I've always seen their ethnicity bound up with their historical theology even if most are agnostic/secularists and don't actually believe it.

2. The next question I would then ask is what particular thing is it about Jewish theology (or ideology) is so horrible for taking over (say in a Worst-Case Scenario Thought Experiment). What is it about this particular Theology (or Ideology?) that is so reprehensible that it's reprehensible-ness is derived from it's Jewishness as opposed to simply being reprehensible on it's own terms? That is - would it still be reprehensible if everyone on the planet suddenly had amnesia and didn't even acknowledge a Jewish people existed/exist (including say the Jews themselves)?

 

In other words...the reason some find WWROA's posts objectionable is that he has failed to demonstrate specifically that it is the Jewishey-ness of the theology/ideology that is the cause for being alarmed.

 

[edit: or to put it another way - he has not clarified his position so that it is easy to draw the conclusion he is saying that one needs to be alarmed because it is Jewish as opposed to it being simply bad. ]

 

3. If one can NOT demonstrate this link then there is no basis for targeting Jews specifically for the things WWROA is posing one needs to be alarmed about. In other words...it's basis has not been shown to be rational. And when the non-reasoning part of people begins to overshadow the reasonable part bad things tend to follow in its wake as Ralis' post (and history) amply shows.

 

As another example - The Chinese equivalent would be the similar debates in the 19th and early 20th century in the U.S. of the "Yellow Peril" that was popular then (as an aside: notice how the "Yellow Peril" was mostly an objection against Chinese men...seems men of all ethnicities are all too delighted to mate with willing, pretty females of other ethnicities).

Edited April 5, 2013 by SereneBlue
Added Wikipedia link for "Yellow Peril" for the history buffs at TTB.

[gendao]

^ Yes...

I don't support the post at all. It is filled with conspiratorial anti-semitic remarks.

Don't twist what I write!

Well, he had basically argued that largely Jews have used Communism & other ideologies to takeover the world...

Which you dismissed as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" by...citing a historical example of mostly Jewish Communists who attempted to takeover the German government?

As another example - The Chinese equivalent would be the similar debates in the 19th and early 20th century in the U.S. of the "Yellow Peril" that was popular then (as an aside: notice how the "Yellow Peril" was mostly an objection against Chinese men...seems men of all ethnicities are all too delighted to mate with willing, pretty females of other ethnicities).

Interestingly, this "Yellow Peril" still exists perhaps most strongly in Israel (and its strongest supporters) today.

Chinese workers in Israel sign no-sex contract

Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
The Guardian, Wednesday 24 December 2003 05.42 EST

Chinese workers at a company in Israel have been forced to agree not to have sex with or marry Israelis as a condition of getting a job.

According to a contact they are required to sign, male workers may not have any contact with Israeli women - including prostitutes, a police spokesman, Rafi Yaffe, said.

He said there was nothing illegal about the requirement and that no investigation had been opened.

An Israeli lawyer who did not want to be named said while the contract might appear legal, it would be rejected if challenged in court. "The point is that a Chinese worker will agree to anything and then will not have anyone to help them if there is a problem," he said.

The labourers are also forbidden from engaging in any religious or political activity. The contract states that offenders will be sent back to China at their own expense.

About 260,000 foreigners work in Israel, having replaced Palestinian labourers during three years of fighting. When the government first allowed the entrance of the foreign workers in the late 1990s, ministers warned of a "social timebomb" caused by their assimilation with Israelis.

More than half the workers are in the country illegally. Israeli police have increased efforts to deport those working without permits because of rising Israeli unemployment, which has reached 11% in recent months.
Advocates of foreign workers, who also come from Thailand, the Philippines and Romania, say they are subject to almost slave conditions, and their employers often take away their passports and refuse to pay them.

Analysts say there is much division within Israeli society over immigration and status, although the conflict with the Palestinians has given it an appearance of unity. Recent immigrants such as Russians and Ethiopians are disliked by older immigrants, and there is much resentment among secular Israelis at the privileges given to ultra-orthodox Jews. The foreign workers are at the bottom of the pile.

“We have created a Jewish and democratic nation, and we cannot let it turn into a nation of foreign workers,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a conference of the Israel Manufacturers Association in January.

The No. 1 target is the Chinese, who in recent years have received nearly all of the construction work permits. Chinese accounted for a quarter of all deportations from 2003 to 2008, more than any other foreign group.

Anyhow, one good test for political acumen is the ability to PREDICT the political future... So, post your predictions here, fellas - and let time tell!

1) "Molochites" will stage increasing false-flag cyber attacks against the US and scapegoat China for it. This will justify increasing government internet control - to help them clamp down on all the uncensored "e-conspiracy theories" that threaten to expose and foil all their plots. As well as serve as a pretext for military action against China to eliminate an internationally-competitive currency and relieve the trade deficit (just like the Opium War).

Edited April 5, 2013 by vortex

[ralis]

^ Yes...

Well, you had basically argued that largely Jews have used Communism & other ideologies to takeover the world...

 

Which you dismissed as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" by...citing a historical example of mostly Jewish Communists who attempted to tak

eover German government?

 

Vortex,

 

That is a false claim. I gave one example from history and you twist it to mean something entirely different. The example was to demonstrate the modern roots of anti-semitism not some conspiracy for Jewish world domination!

[JustARandomPanda]

Ok

 

Here's an article on Historical Fascism the Ideology (as opposed to Fascism the current-day popular put-down by assorted political party hacks, talking heads and all-around [imo] wankers...)

 

I like Paul Gottfried (an "Old Right" - read pre-20th century Conservative) because he's made a career about studying political history and then trying to remind people where their favorite political terms, ideas, policies, etc originated. What's the old saying from Santayana? Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it...

 

 

 

 

Who's A Fascist?

by Paul Gottfried

 

 

 

Having been at work on a book dealing with changing definitions of the “F word,” meaning in this case not the one-time obscenity but the ultimate evil in the world of political correctness, I find my comments on the subject have caused considerable irritation. Although I once assumed that only the conventional left was fixated on fascist dangers, I now know the fascist specter is scaring libertarians as well. My statements that fascism must be understood in an interwar European context, that it was a reaction from the right against the threat of Communist and other leftist revolutionary upheavals, that garden-variety fascism — for example, as practiced through the first 14 years of Mussolini’s rule in Italy — was neither really socialist nor totalitarian, have all elicited angry comments from libertarian bloggers.

 

Like the more conventional leftists, these libertarians seem grossly ignorant of 20th-century history. Right and left for my critics are what they are thought to be in the U.S. at this moment. The two reference points have always been the same, and for the right the eternal battle has been about fighting the “state,” which has been around since the time the pyramids were built. Those who have advanced state power have always been immutably on the left; and presumably the left includes Amenhotep, Henry VIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and Bismarck, just as the right has always featured such stalwart conservatives as Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill.

 

One hostile blogger was concerned that I couldn’t see this simple truth because “I am so blinded by my hatred for NRO.” This obviously referred to my amusement at how the one-time editor of that site had tried to link Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the politics of both Italian fascism and German Nazism. Apparently all defenders of the welfare state were or are fascists and somehow implicated in Hitler’s crimes. For partisan reasons, Republicans on this telling are spared association with the F-term, even when implicated in the same welfare politics.

 

I was amused to see an essay on fascism by a Canadian Bill Gairdner in the New Criterion (October 2012) that resuscitates one of Jonah Goldberg’s assertions, that the multicultural left by supporting minority set asides is moving along the path of interwar fascism. Like Goldberg and like my hostile bloggers, Gairdner makes “fascism” fit anything he doesn’t happen to like. Thus the f-word is stretched to apply to such nuisances as Arab youth rioting in suburban Paris and gender studies at American universities.

 

Not to dwell overly long on my latest contact with partisan dishonesty and historical ignorance, let me state the following about fascism as a historical phenomenon. Already in 1946 George Orwell, who was definitely a man of the Left, noticed that after the Second World War “everyone in England is calling what he doesn’t like fascist.” Note Orwell was making this critical observation well before the 1960s, when the rise of the New Left and the emergence of Holocaust studies (which often equates all fascism with Hitler and the Final Solution) turned the F-word into the world’s greatest and most insidious evil.

 

Moreover, the anti-New Deal Right in the U.S. had added to the semantic and conceptual confusion by equating the New Deal with fascism. In this case however there was some justification. FDR and his advisor Rexford Tugwell both expressed admiration for Mussolini’s economic reforms in Italy, the extent of which however they vastly exaggerated.

 

Viewed contextually (which according to the historian Herbert Butterfield and Butterfield’s biographer Kenneth McIntyre is the way historians should be practicing their craft), fascism was a movement that prospered on the European continent between the two world wars. It was an imitation of the left that tried to pull along the working class, but it depended mostly on bourgeois support. Its economics were corporatist in theory but in practice usually left most of the economy in private hands. Unlike the left, fascists believed in hierarchy and in the organization of the nation along organic and vocational lines. But these preferences led only to minimal change in the social structure, and except for their style and fondness for pageantry, it is hard to distinguish some fascist or quasi-fascist regimes from traditional authoritarian ones.

 

The regime of the Spanish Nationalist leader Francisco Franco was for the most part a military dictatorship that turned into a caretaker government practicing economic modernization. But Franco tried to integrate into his coalition the fascist Falange organization, which had helped him defeat the left in the Spanish Civil War. And so he adopted some of the trappings and personnel of the Falangists, before unceremoniously dropping both after the Second World War.

 

In Austria, the anti-Marxist and anti-Nazi regime of the “clerical fascist” Engelbert Dollfuss in the early 1930s glued onto a Catholic-bourgeois ruling coalition some of the rituals and rhetoric of his friend Mussolini, who for several years was Dollfuss’s protector against Hitler. The “Austro-fascist” experiment began to unravel when the Nazis killed Dollfuss in 1934, when Mussolini changed sides in 1936, and when Hitler occupied Austria in 1938.

 

Although the fascists were not “conservative” in any traditional sense, they were probably more so than my libertarian critics. In interwar Europe being “conservative” did not mean “being for markets,” legalizing addictive drugs, or distributing anarcho-capitalist leaflets. It meant favoring a traditional state that accepted a traditional social order and which was usually tied to an established church. In that bygone world my libertarian bloggers would have been considered hopelessly demented leftists. Although fascists were not particularly agreeable to traditional conservatives, philosophical libertarians would have been even less popular in these circles. European liberals may have been closer to the anarcho-capitalist mentality but only slightly. Unlike our libertarians, old-fashioned liberals held Victorian social and moral views and were highly suspicious of democracy.

 

Being a broadminded reactionary, I would allow for a broad understanding of the right as a counter-force to the left depending on how the two terms are understood at a particular time and in a particular place. In the present American context, being an advocate of minimal government means opposing leftist public administration and its multicultural and leveling policies. Libertarianism, viewed from this situational perspective, is a reactionary position, just as opposing Communist subversives was in Europe after the Bolshevik Revolution. The right has a functional identity, in the sense that it stands athwart the left and tries to limit its destructive power. That is what defines the right operationally, certainly not faith in representative democracy or a belief that each person should be able to do his own thing. Although one may personally like those positions, they are only accidentally right-wing.

 

[JustARandomPanda]

Here is the link to the Article on Historical Fascism written by Paul Gottfried that stirred up the hornets nest (and made him to write the follow-up essay I posted prior) and prompted a lot of invectives hurled at him.

 

If one is going to go around scaring people about the "Fascist Peril" it's probably a good idea to familiarize yourself with the actual historical political ideology and how it played out when actually implemented by various governments around the world.

[voidisyinyang]

Well the emphasis should be on global capitalism - Wall Street funded Hitler, etc.

 

Anthony Sutton did the research proving this.

 

But then it was confirmed by a best selling author Kevin Phillips.

 

There never would have been a fascist movement with real power unless the global finance bankers -- investment bankers - didn't think it was a great way to make a profit.

[Apech]

Just a few points:

 

1 ) saying Communism is a jewish conspiracy because Karl Marx was jewish is like saying relativistic physics is a jewish conspiracy because of Einstein.

 

2 ) because European languages fall into the same language group does not make all Europeans to be the same. Also being descended from Tutankhamun means very little ... a lot of people are descended from Genghis Khan ... we are all descended from mitochondrial eve ...all this proves is that the concept of 'race' is in itself wrong.

 

3 ) most Americans are Europeans ... unless you are a native american, an african american or from the east. The US constitution and institutions are distinctly European and a product of the thinking around at the time of the late 18th century ... which in terms of human history is yesterday.

 

4 ) the fascist symbol (the axe and bundle of wood) means he who holds the axe (to cut) i.e. define the terms ... controls the people by becoming a unifying focus .... the wood (the people) are bound to the axe (the elite).

 

There seems to be a brand of thinking here that is distinctly american ... in that there is a utopian ideal which suggests that if you could take away the state then everyone would be happy ... whether that state is viewed as fascist or communist the american dialogue is all about big versus small government. In most other countries it is accepted that you cannot have a modern state without government and that democracy is the 'safest' ... also that the state has a role in fact a duty to protect the welfare and interests of the people.

 

There is no doubt that Israel has a disproportionate level of influence in Washington. But this if anything is a product of Zionism and not being Jewish. For instance I dislike intensely what the Israelis do to the Palestinian Arabs ... and yet this is nothing to do with being anti-semitic because I am sure there are a lot of jews who feel the same as me. If you want to say that there are small interest groups which try to boss the world that ok ... but if you say it is a jewish conspiracy then that is to suggest that all jews are involved which is not true.

 

Human nature in the world is to seek and seize power for self benefit. OK 'human nature' in the sense of 'higher self' or buddha-nature' and so on in different ... but most people are not realised and have no interest (it would seem) in being so.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Well the emphasis should be on global capitalism - Wall Street funded Hitler, etc.

 

Anthony Sutton did the research proving this.

 

But then it was confirmed by a best selling author Kevin Phillips.

 

There never would have been a fascist movement with real power unless the global finance bankers -- investment bankers - didn't think it was a great way to make a profit.

 

 

 

BEWARE FALSE PROPHETS FOR THEY SPELL IT WRONG!

 

 

Do not accept, adhere to, condone, or allow "profits" to occupy our world!

[voidisyinyang]

http://shadows.kcetlink.org/

 

Shadows of Liberty -- streaming today only -- amazing documentary on corporate control of media as mass mind control.

[zerostao]

"or anti-GMO?"

occupy monsanto now

[joeblast]

There seems to be a brand of thinking here that is distinctly american ... in that there is a utopian ideal which suggests that if you could take away the state then everyone would be happy ... whether that state is viewed as fascist or communist the american dialogue is all about big versus small government. In most other countries it is accepted that you cannot have a modern state without government and that democracy is the 'safest' ... also that the state has a role in fact a duty to protect the welfare and interests of the people.

There is the issue of an entity growing to such a size that it forgets what created it and turns entirely to serving its own growth. Multinational corporations do it, smaller corporations do it, Unions do it, governments do it.

 

Limiting the size and scale of all of them is absolutely in the interests of "the people."

 

Most of us accept that some level of government is necessary.

 

Some think the government should be able to command and control to whatever extent it deems necessary, most of us recognize that such power corrupts absolutely.

[zerostao]

"Limiting the size and scale of all of them is absolutely in the interests of "the people."

right right no more of that too big to fail ideal

failing is a natural part of life, mine anyways, and it doesnt take away from a quality of life either. we learn from failures.

"WE THE PEOPLE"

 

occupy monsanto they have gotten waaaaaaaaaay tooooooo big

[Apech]

There is the issue of an entity growing to such a size that it forgets what created it and turns entirely to serving its own growth. Multinational corporations do it, smaller corporations do it, Unions do it, governments do it.

 

Limiting the size and scale of all of them is absolutely in the interests of "the people."

 

Most of us accept that some level of government is necessary.

 

Some think the government should be able to command and control to whatever extent it deems necessary, most of us recognize that such power corrupts absolutely.

 

I don't think that is a problem of size per se. I think its a problem of structure, accountability and flexibility (adapting to local conditions). I think this is where the big versus small argument falls down. I agree though it is an intrinsic problem with big organisations that the power structure become remote and they fall into a kind of self perpetuation forgetting why they exist in the first place. The depressing thing about the European Union is that it was set up to be like this ... rather than growing into a monster over centuries.

[joeblast]

yeah I suppose it does have a decent dependence on how powermad the people are in charge of the given entity.

 

so, how collectivist-statist are the people that run a place like msnbc - yeah, well, it'll be better from a resource standpoint if we stop thinking of your kids as your kids, they're the collective's kids, didnt ya know...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N3qtpdSQox0

[Apech]

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

 

 

Quote from Margaret Thatcher who died today.

[Owledge]

 

• vader (German)
• bruder (German)

• broeder (Dutch)

 

Small correction there: "vader" is Dutch. In German it's "Vater", and words like "Bruder" with a capital, since nouns in German are always written in capital.

[zerostao]

in a world of fascism and other such madness

random acts of kindness does much to combat the evils

i challenege all bums to act randomly in kindness and do so

anonymously if possible,

keep it on the down low and lets build some momentum

not only does this create good Te it is fun stuff

act randomly in kindness joyfully and lets defeat fascism

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

my signature does not put the message "out there" good enough, does it?


"If, whensoever within your means you are able, you are asked to do a favor that is benign and beneficial: Never hesitate to assist."



"First and foremost: BREATHE.
Then, just be Harmless, not helpful."

"I Am just a Human Being, Simply being Human; I am not what any path I walk entitles me to call myself, but I Am a Human Being entitled to walk all paths."

Edited April 10, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[joeblast]

two words:

 

"we need more cameras"

 

 

what next, after the cameras arent enough and are found to not really stop a whole hell of a lot of nothing? well hell, since we have access to all this data...

[gendao]

Some think the government should be able to command and control to whatever extent it deems necessary, most of us recognize that such power corrupts absolutely.

Lol, I guess they got what they voted for!

After Benghazi, IRS tea party probe: Govt seized AP phone records

By Olivier Knox

 

Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.

 

“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”

 

Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.

 

"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote.

 

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."

 

Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."

 

Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.

 

And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds. Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."

 

"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.

DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats

An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it's possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans' e-mail "without running afoul" of the Fourth Amendment.

by Declan McCullagh May 8, 2013 7:00 AM PDT

The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal.

 

Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail.

 

The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena -- a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge -- is sufficient to obtain nearly "all records from an ISP." And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the "contents of stored communications" from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first.

 

The Justice Department's disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment. A previously unreleased version of an FBI manual (PDF), last updated two-and-a-half years after the appellate ruling, says field agents "may subpoena" e-mail records from companies "without running afoul of" the Fourth Amendment.

New York Times reported Tuesday evening that the Obama administration may embrace the FBI's proposal for a federal law mandating that tech companies build in backdoors for surveillance. CNET reported last year that the FBI has asked the companies not to oppose such legislation, and that the FBI has been building a case for a new law by collecting examples of how communications companies have stymied government agencies.

Harass whistleblowers and monitor all media. Hmm, sounds familiar...

Edited May 14, 2013 by vortex

[joeblast]

"it's pointless to state counterfactual things like "the government has limited enumerated powers". If it doesn't act like it does, and if the Supreme Court doesn't force it to, then it doesn't. You and I can say that it does until the cows come home, but it doesn't change anything."

 

limited and enumerated, indeed

[voidisyinyang]

Teachers in Greece Warned to Not Strike

By Danny Weil on May 16, 2013

 

http://www.dailycensored.com/teachers-in-greece-warned-to-not-strike/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Dailycensored+%28Daily+Censored%29

[zerostao]

"it's pointless to state counterfactual things like "the government has limited enumerated powers". If it doesn't act like it does, and if the Supreme Court doesn't force it to, then it doesn't. You and I can say that it does until the cows come home, but it doesn't change anything."

 

limited and enumerated, indeed

 

seems like the main activity of the govt is to investigate itself, and no wonder.

[joeblast]

only what it wants to investigate, of course - then when the congressional inquisitions come along, the attorney general can go sit there under oath and say "why, I had nothing to do with this, I had no knowledge of this whatsoever, hey, it must have been my deputy attorney general...or someone..."

 

kinda like obama finds out about the news when he sees it on tv like the rest of us, right? or that was funny, jon stewart joking that he finds out about these things when he sees himself on the tv, hah.

 

 

ordered not to strike in greece...I think I recall seeing they have something like 60% unemployment for youngens under 24 or so. that's what happens when you get in bed with the government *shrugs* where else but a public sector union can you be ordered to go to work or face arrest.

 

well hey, when your finance ministry looks like this....