Cain and the greatest 9 words a politician has ever said
12-06-2011, 04:26 PM
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Cain and the greatest 9 words a politician has ever said
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...s-gettin--real
Cain is fully :awesome: for this quote. Bwahahahahah.
Cain is fully :awesome: for this quote. Bwahahahahah.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 01:07 AM
#11
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
I think my favorite Cain quote is
“I am the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother and proud of it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...nother-mother/
putting asside his obviously psycopathic behavioral problems that allow him to be such a sexual harrasser and adulturer it just amazes me that the right wing Tea party types are so drawn to candidates who really seem to have a Fasciest agenda.
This guy sucked up excessive executive compensation in the corporate world which through are current tax system of coddling the rich and corporations is paid for by other tax payers.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109
He thin went on to be a corporate Lobyist even worked for the federal reserve for a while and now wanted to lead the government. Now Newt is the front runner he is just as bad. Good god has the right wing all turned fascist.
I don’t like Ron Paul but at least he isnt blaitantly fascist he just agrees with much of the same course of actions as the fascist. Hell even Huntsman seems somwhat resonable. This nation has lost its frikin mind, glued to Fox news, we have become an Idiocracy.
Bob
“I am the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother and proud of it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...nother-mother/
putting asside his obviously psycopathic behavioral problems that allow him to be such a sexual harrasser and adulturer it just amazes me that the right wing Tea party types are so drawn to candidates who really seem to have a Fasciest agenda.
This guy sucked up excessive executive compensation in the corporate world which through are current tax system of coddling the rich and corporations is paid for by other tax payers.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109
He thin went on to be a corporate Lobyist even worked for the federal reserve for a while and now wanted to lead the government. Now Newt is the front runner he is just as bad. Good god has the right wing all turned fascist.
I don’t like Ron Paul but at least he isnt blaitantly fascist he just agrees with much of the same course of actions as the fascist. Hell even Huntsman seems somwhat resonable. This nation has lost its frikin mind, glued to Fox news, we have become an Idiocracy.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 07:42 AM
#13
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
The whole notion that you would even consider for a second that Ron Paul "isn't blaitantly fascist" suggests you know little on the subject. You do realize the further left on the spectrum you go, the closer you are to fascism, right? It's probably because you have no understanding of this, the entire right side of the dividing line confuses you.
I'd argue the two American presidents that could be considered as being facist would be Wilson and FDR. They weren't republicans, they were leftists.
But let's use relevant history, we could easily consider Obamacare as Fascism. Mull that over.
Or how about when Obama has the FCC and EPA and other organizations create their ownlaws rules, penalties, and enforcement without Congress's approval and against the word of the Court, what do you call that? Libertarianism? 
Like I said, Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony.
Acutally, do we need a lesson in what fasicm is? It's apparent your indoctrination was successful.
I'd argue the two American presidents that could be considered as being facist would be Wilson and FDR. They weren't republicans, they were leftists.
But let's use relevant history, we could easily consider Obamacare as Fascism. Mull that over.
Or how about when Obama has the FCC and EPA and other organizations create their own
Like I said, Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony.
Acutally, do we need a lesson in what fasicm is? It's apparent your indoctrination was successful.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-07-2011 at 08:56 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 09:43 AM
#14
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
To be fair (and with the disclaimer that I agree with most of what you wrote), the power of appointed officials of regulatory agencies to create and enforce law without the action of Congress is by no means a novel concept.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 10:04 AM
#16
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
It's a complex issue.
I mean, do we honestly expect Congress to approve every single rule and code governing every single commercial activity in the whole US?
Take the FCC, as an example, as it's one that you mentioned and one which I have to deal with on a regular basis. The Commission has "laws" which regulate the amount of bandwidth any broadcast station is allowed to occupy, the amount of modulation they can apply within their band, the modulation techniques which they are to employ, the spurious emissions which they are allowed to create vs. those which they must suppress, the power levels and patterns at which they are permitted to operate during the day vs. at night, and the times of day when the shifts are to be made, and on and on and on.
I don't expect Congress to be able to even comprehend the majority of this, much less would I want them to have a hand in governing it. We'd still be stuck using Marconi-era transmitters.
I mean, do we honestly expect Congress to approve every single rule and code governing every single commercial activity in the whole US?
Take the FCC, as an example, as it's one that you mentioned and one which I have to deal with on a regular basis. The Commission has "laws" which regulate the amount of bandwidth any broadcast station is allowed to occupy, the amount of modulation they can apply within their band, the modulation techniques which they are to employ, the spurious emissions which they are allowed to create vs. those which they must suppress, the power levels and patterns at which they are permitted to operate during the day vs. at night, and the times of day when the shifts are to be made, and on and on and on.
I don't expect Congress to be able to even comprehend the majority of this, much less would I want them to have a hand in governing it. We'd still be stuck using Marconi-era transmitters.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 10:10 AM
#17
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
I agree.
So why would someone call a person a fascist if he is for the abolishment of the FCC?
Here's a timely read:
Republicans...well lets say Conservatives, in a nutshell prefer freedom over regulation. Liberals on the otherhand want the gov't to regulate everything. If you consider the above quote and what I bolded, and that most of the republican front runners have said they'd abolish tons of gov't programs and reduce the size scope of gov't, which side is acutally closer to fascism?
So why would someone call a person a fascist if he is for the abolishment of the FCC?
Here's a timely read:
As the ranks of those dependent on the welfare state continue to grow, the need for the rulers to pay attention to the ruled population diminishes. The masters know full well that the sheep will not bolt the enclosure in which the shepherds are making it possible for them to survive. Every person who becomes dependent on the state simultaneously becomes one less person who might act in some way to oppose the existing regime. Thus have modern governments gone greatly beyond the bread and circuses with which the Roman Caesars purchased the common people’s allegiance. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the only changes that occur in the makeup of the ruling elite resemble a shuffling of the occupants in the first-class cabins of a luxury liner. Never mind that this liner is the economic and moral equivalent of the Titanic and that its ultimate fate is no more propitious than was that of the “unsinkable” ship that went to the bottom a century ago.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 11:12 AM
#18
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
Just another timely read for Joe:
A Quick Assessment of the FCC’s Appalling Staff Report on the AT&T Merger
"This is central planning at its most repugnant."
http://techliberation.com/2011/12/02...he-att-merger/
A Quick Assessment of the FCC’s Appalling Staff Report on the AT&T Merger
"This is central planning at its most repugnant."
http://techliberation.com/2011/12/02...he-att-merger/
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 11:37 AM
#19
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
The whole notion that you would even consider for a second that Ron Paul "isn't blaitantly fascist" suggests you know little on the subject. You do realize the further left on the spectrum you go, the closer you are to fascism, right? It's probably because you have no understanding of this, the entire right side of the dividing line confuses you.
I'd argue the two American presidents that could be considered as being facist would be Wilson and FDR. They weren't republicans, they were leftists.
But let's use relevant history, we could easily consider Obamacare as Fascism. Mull that over.
Or how about when Obama has the FCC and EPA and other organizations create their ownlaws rules, penalties, and enforcement without Congress's approval and against the word of the Court, what do you call that? Libertarianism?
Like I said, Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony.
Acutally, do we need a lesson in what fasicm is? It's apparent your indoctrination was successful.
I'd argue the two American presidents that could be considered as being facist would be Wilson and FDR. They weren't republicans, they were leftists.
But let's use relevant history, we could easily consider Obamacare as Fascism. Mull that over.
Or how about when Obama has the FCC and EPA and other organizations create their own
Like I said, Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony.
Acutally, do we need a lesson in what fasicm is? It's apparent your indoctrination was successful.
In my opinion Ron Paul is the only current republican candidate that isn’t a fascist. It is just that the ideology though different in intent will look very similar and have similar result. Economically It’s like ok we’ve given the proceeds of our productivity to a small group of people for a while now they can keep that and we want to pare the rules down to nothing, remove the civilized aspects that help provide opportunity to the players and start the game over. I believe it will be a really short game before society crumbles.
Government regulatory agencies are not fascist in a liberal democracy as we attempt to be they can and often do help protect the environment, civilized society, and the livelihood of people. The people that want to control or eliminate them solely for the benefit of big business are the fascist. Many of these regulatory agencies peaked in there level of fascism under GWB and we have yet to recover.
And you’re statement that FDR was a fascist further proves to me you don’t have a clue what fascism is. I will buy FDR as having socialist tendencies but not fascist. With Wilson though I can definitely see the Federal Reserve act as fascist but most of the rest of the stuff he did not so much.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 12:03 PM
#20
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
The above dynamic will only change if gov't's ability to sell economic favors is curtailed. That's what regulation is disguised as.
If you think of the buying and selling of economic favors as a marketplace, and see how cheaply politicians sell these favors, (e.g. Perry and Merck's Gardasil), you will realize that there is a lot of supply relative to demand, and that politicians trip over each other selling said economic favors.
The mistake many people make is the assumption that "if gov't didn't do it, it wouldn't get done". This myth extends to regulation.
There are many ways the market can provide competitive regulation. There are many non-gov't regulatory agencies that sell testing and certification as a service. UL, ISO, ANSI, VDE, IEC, and TUV are just a few. Just like any other industry with free market competition, they compete on quality and cost, and guard their reputations.
The problem with gov't regulatory agencies is that their monopoly and lack of competition makes them prone to corruption and they have no incentive to improve. In a free market a player that lags behind will lose customers and die.
Additionally, the gov't regulatory agencies give the corporations legal immunity. A pharma company could (knowingly) get a dangerous drug past FDA testing and then be immune to lawsuits later on because the drug "passed FDA testing". Conversely, the FDA has no incentive to pass life-saving drugs more quickly.
If the FDA's monopoly were revoked, competing agencies could sprout up. They could run a website with live test updates, and they could compete on transparency, thoroughness, testing, and speed. Doctors could then look through a database of drugs and check out which agencies tested them with what effects and results, and decide which drug to prescribe based on that information. And so on.
Corporations have no "power" if they cannot lobby for favors, as gov't has the legal monopoly of enforcing its will through the barrel of a gun. In the absence of gov't "regulation", market regulation will exist due to competing economic interests. In the absence of gov't protection/regulation, big corporations will have to compete in the marketplace just as small ones do - by improving their product and pricing in order to get customers to voluntarily buy their products.
The idea that power to intervene in the economy can be vested in a small group and then wielded in order to protect the public is naive.
The idea that leftism and fascism are opposites or somehow cannot is very naive. They can be symbiotic.
Fabian Socialism is the philosophy that a wise, ruling, wealthy elite maintains their power and wealth and controls the masses by making them dependent on gov't welfare, because they have the right and the duty to do so. This is what we have.
Reply
0
0
