info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
when bill clinton repealed the new deal and made it legal to swindle, commit fraud, theft, and manipulate, he unleashed the likes of enron on us, bush actually went after enron and arthur anderson, why did obama let wall street get away with their cr
11 views
Skip to first unread message
nickname unavailable
Jul 27, 2017, 8:53:08 PM7/27/17
to
when bill clinton repealed the new deal and made it legal to swindle, commit fraud, theft, and manipulate, he unleashed the likes of enron on us, bush actually went after enron and arthur anderson, why did obama let wall street get away with their crimes openly?
OpEdNews Op Eds 7/27/2017 at 22:25:43
Can Chuck Schumer Lead the Democrats to "Unity" on Economic Issues?
By Gaius Publius
Is it impertinent to say this? Not constructive enough? Or necessary to make the change the country needs? I've heard all three asserted lately.
I'd like to put three thoughts together for consideration as a set.
1. Chuck Schumer recently told George Stephanopolis that "we [Democrats] are united on economic issues." See 33:36 in this video.
Not sure what you think, but that seems the most absurd statement of the month. It's precisely economic issues -- trade deals, service to corporate needs, bailouts of Wall Street instead of Main Street, forgiveness of crushing debts like student loans -- that divide Democrats most deeply.
And worse, I think Schumer knows that he's lying as he says that.
2. The polling memo that lead to the Democratic Party's "Better Deal" plan contains these two contradictory statements. First, from the middle of the piece:
[A] large majority of battleground state voters respond favorably to [this] statement of the premise and direction that define the Better Deal Economic Agenda...:
"Too many families in America today feel that the rules of the economy are rigged against them. Special interests have a stranglehold on Washington -- from the super-rich spending unlimited amounts of secret money to influence our elections, to the huge loopholes in our tax code that help corporations avoid paying taxes...."
Note the attack on the wealthy that voters agree with. Now, from the first paragraph, in which Democrats who commissioned the polling were told their "themes" were consistent with this message:
"As Senate and House Democrats begin to roll out their new Better Deal Economic Agenda, a
review of recent public opinion polling shows that the central themes and frames that are at the heart of this agenda match closely with the experiences, values, and priorities of American voters today."
Do you think the Democratic Party, as currently captained by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, embraces the themes "the rules of the economy are rigged" and "special interests [the very rich] have a stranglehold on Washington"?
3. Consider this interesting piece from a David Sirota podcast about when the U.S. government stopped prosecuting "white collar" (i.e., Wall Street) crime. From a partial transcript, this is the introduction:
"In 2008 Wall Street banks created a financial crisis that incinerated the economy. It was only a few years after the Justice Department had aggressively prosecuted Enron and Arthur Anderson, and so many folks expected similar prosecutions of financial executives, especially because Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to 'bring a new era of responsibility and accountability to Wall Street.' But as recounted in a new podcast with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jesse Eisinger, it never happened.
"Eisinger has just released a new book called 'The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives.' It tracks how a furious pressure campaign by corporate America fundamentally changed the culture of the Justice Department. Instead of going after executives who commit white collar crime, the agency now often offers settlements with corporations, forcing shareholders to pick up the tab for fines while leaving executives untouched.
"The result, says Eisinger, is a criminal justice system that no longer seriously deters corporate crime, but instead makes it just a mundane cost of doing business. Shareholders may pay some fines, but executives often get a nice get-out-of-jail-free card, avoiding prison or any kind of punishment."
From near the end of the interview (emphasis mine):
"Sirota: So a successful prosecution of Arthur Anderson becomes the justification for, 'We shouldn't prosecute Arthur Andersons in the future because the prosecutors in theory were too strong, were too harsh, went after them too vigorously.' Meanwhile, your book tracks the concurrent rise of the so-called 'too big to jail' idea. How did that evolve?
"Eisinger: What happens is, there's a 1909 Supreme Court ruling [that says] if there is an employee who in the course of his or her job commits a crime, the entire company can be prosecuted. That is the power that the government has. It's essentially neglected. They don't really prosecute companies for a very long time."
Note that last paragraph; it's important. Eisinger continues:
"In the 1990s, starting out, they're unsatisfied with this. They don't really want to prosecute companies all the time. They used to be focused on individuals, but they started shifting the focus on trying to root out the rotten cultures at companies. They hit on this haphazardly. Mary Jo White, as the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District, comes up with this settlement. Then, she sends her lieutenant and writes a memo that Eric Holder signs saying, 'Here are the principles for how we're going to prosecute a company.' One of the principles is, 'We'll take into account collateral consequences.... Eric Holder gets a lot of blame for this in retrospect, but he didn't really write it.'
"Then, [the] Arthur Anderson [investigation] happens, and they ignored these principles, quite rightly in my view, and prosecute the company. Larry Thompson updates them, and that becomes the locus for the lobbying, where they hit on one aspect of these principles to try to tear them all down. The aspect of the principles is that they attack the fact that the government can ask for companies to waive attorney-client privilege when they're doing investigations, so that the government can get access to all that's going on in their own internal investigation. If companies want to cooperate and they want to get leniency from the government, they have to waive attorney-client privilege.
"Companies scream bloody murder, and so does the white-collar bar. Over the course of the next decade, those powers are completely rolled back, which really strip the ability for prosecutors to get inside companies to investigate. That has a whole cascading series of effects.
"Sirota: Okay. Now let's move up to the Obama era. What could the Obama administration have done based on all of the trends you've just charted, and what did it do instead?
"Eisinger: The first thing they could have done is created a task force, a big, giant task force to address a variety of financial crisis-era cases. People should remember, the financial crisis hits in the end of the Bush administration. The height is September. The election is in November. All the firms that collapse, the criminal investigations are going on, and the late Bush administration folks who are on their way out don't take a series of serious decisions and let the investigations start to percolate. That's the first mistake.
"The Obama administration inherits that mistake, but they compound it by not doing anything about it. One thing they needed to do was create a task force where you figuratively lock 50 prosecutors in a room together to look at -- five needed to look at Lehman Brothers, and 10 needed to look at the CDO business, and five needed to look at Citi, and six needed to look at JP Morgan, etc., etc. If you had, they would have found crimes.
"In fact, what happens is they don't really look in a serious way. Whenever you hear Eric Holder or Preet Bharara or Lanny Breuer saying, 'We looked seriously and nobody ever presented us a criminal case without a doubt prosecuting a high-level individual,' the secret is that they didn't look. That was mistake number one.
"Sirota: What are the continuing effects of the Justice Department culture that the Obama administration basically helped cement?
"Eisinger: The day-to-day legacy now is that the Department of Justice has lost the will and ability to prosecute top corporate executives. This is the flip side. [We] know about mass incarceration and the scandal of that, and that we disproportionately punish mostly poor, mostly people of color, in this country. This is the flip side of that, which is that we allow the rich and powerful to commit crimes with impunity if they are in executive positions at major corporations. That is a scandal, and it undermines the fairness and justice of our system and the rule of law.
"The Obama administration has contributed to it. What they do now is they settle with corporations rather than focusing on prosecuting individuals. They have lost the skill set to do with it, because settling with corporations is so easy and because of the way settlements come about, which is that we have outsourced and privatized investigations to the corporations themselves. It's basically like allowing Pablo Escobar to hire the major law firm of Medellin to investigate whether Escobar is dealing drugs or not. That surprisingly is an investigation that might yield a few street-level drug users but is not going to actually implicate Pablo himself."
And note the Obama administration -- confirmed process for handling major white-collar crime:
"[Eisinger:] We have corporations who have a scandal. They hire a law firm. The law firm does the investigation. The investigation is studiously incurious about going to the top levels, and worse than that, they negotiate, then they hand the results to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice looks over it, and then comes up with some kind of fine that the shareholders pay. The executives don't pay it. The company, the piece of paper has to pay it, but that comes out of shareholder pockets. Then those prosecutors, many of them, go to work for those law firms themselves after a few years. That is a deeply corrupt process."
"That is a deeply corrupt process." Not only that, but everyone in America knows it. These are the voters who think "the rules of the economy are rigged" and "[the very rich] have a stranglehold on Washington." Do Americans expect the Democratic Party, as currently led, to change any of this? Will a slogan -- "A Better Deal" do it?
No, Mr. Schumer, Democrats are deeply divided on "economic policy" -- dead-opposite divided in fact. And in other fact, Chuck Schumer is Wall Street's Democrat. Will he change his spots?
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Seems to me though, you have to change the singers, not just music, to get a different sound from the choir. On the other hand, you go to war with the singers you have, my more hopeful friends tell me. Let's see how this plays out.
OpEdNews Op Eds 7/27/2017 at 22:25:43
Can Chuck Schumer Lead the Democrats to "Unity" on Economic Issues?
By Gaius Publius
Is it impertinent to say this? Not constructive enough? Or necessary to make the change the country needs? I've heard all three asserted lately.
I'd like to put three thoughts together for consideration as a set.
1. Chuck Schumer recently told George Stephanopolis that "we [Democrats] are united on economic issues." See 33:36 in this video.
Not sure what you think, but that seems the most absurd statement of the month. It's precisely economic issues -- trade deals, service to corporate needs, bailouts of Wall Street instead of Main Street, forgiveness of crushing debts like student loans -- that divide Democrats most deeply.
And worse, I think Schumer knows that he's lying as he says that.
2. The polling memo that lead to the Democratic Party's "Better Deal" plan contains these two contradictory statements. First, from the middle of the piece:
[A] large majority of battleground state voters respond favorably to [this] statement of the premise and direction that define the Better Deal Economic Agenda...:
"Too many families in America today feel that the rules of the economy are rigged against them. Special interests have a stranglehold on Washington -- from the super-rich spending unlimited amounts of secret money to influence our elections, to the huge loopholes in our tax code that help corporations avoid paying taxes...."
Note the attack on the wealthy that voters agree with. Now, from the first paragraph, in which Democrats who commissioned the polling were told their "themes" were consistent with this message:
"As Senate and House Democrats begin to roll out their new Better Deal Economic Agenda, a
review of recent public opinion polling shows that the central themes and frames that are at the heart of this agenda match closely with the experiences, values, and priorities of American voters today."
Do you think the Democratic Party, as currently captained by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, embraces the themes "the rules of the economy are rigged" and "special interests [the very rich] have a stranglehold on Washington"?
3. Consider this interesting piece from a David Sirota podcast about when the U.S. government stopped prosecuting "white collar" (i.e., Wall Street) crime. From a partial transcript, this is the introduction:
"In 2008 Wall Street banks created a financial crisis that incinerated the economy. It was only a few years after the Justice Department had aggressively prosecuted Enron and Arthur Anderson, and so many folks expected similar prosecutions of financial executives, especially because Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to 'bring a new era of responsibility and accountability to Wall Street.' But as recounted in a new podcast with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jesse Eisinger, it never happened.
"Eisinger has just released a new book called 'The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives.' It tracks how a furious pressure campaign by corporate America fundamentally changed the culture of the Justice Department. Instead of going after executives who commit white collar crime, the agency now often offers settlements with corporations, forcing shareholders to pick up the tab for fines while leaving executives untouched.
"The result, says Eisinger, is a criminal justice system that no longer seriously deters corporate crime, but instead makes it just a mundane cost of doing business. Shareholders may pay some fines, but executives often get a nice get-out-of-jail-free card, avoiding prison or any kind of punishment."
From near the end of the interview (emphasis mine):
"Sirota: So a successful prosecution of Arthur Anderson becomes the justification for, 'We shouldn't prosecute Arthur Andersons in the future because the prosecutors in theory were too strong, were too harsh, went after them too vigorously.' Meanwhile, your book tracks the concurrent rise of the so-called 'too big to jail' idea. How did that evolve?
"Eisinger: What happens is, there's a 1909 Supreme Court ruling [that says] if there is an employee who in the course of his or her job commits a crime, the entire company can be prosecuted. That is the power that the government has. It's essentially neglected. They don't really prosecute companies for a very long time."
Note that last paragraph; it's important. Eisinger continues:
"In the 1990s, starting out, they're unsatisfied with this. They don't really want to prosecute companies all the time. They used to be focused on individuals, but they started shifting the focus on trying to root out the rotten cultures at companies. They hit on this haphazardly. Mary Jo White, as the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District, comes up with this settlement. Then, she sends her lieutenant and writes a memo that Eric Holder signs saying, 'Here are the principles for how we're going to prosecute a company.' One of the principles is, 'We'll take into account collateral consequences.... Eric Holder gets a lot of blame for this in retrospect, but he didn't really write it.'
"Then, [the] Arthur Anderson [investigation] happens, and they ignored these principles, quite rightly in my view, and prosecute the company. Larry Thompson updates them, and that becomes the locus for the lobbying, where they hit on one aspect of these principles to try to tear them all down. The aspect of the principles is that they attack the fact that the government can ask for companies to waive attorney-client privilege when they're doing investigations, so that the government can get access to all that's going on in their own internal investigation. If companies want to cooperate and they want to get leniency from the government, they have to waive attorney-client privilege.
"Companies scream bloody murder, and so does the white-collar bar. Over the course of the next decade, those powers are completely rolled back, which really strip the ability for prosecutors to get inside companies to investigate. That has a whole cascading series of effects.
"Sirota: Okay. Now let's move up to the Obama era. What could the Obama administration have done based on all of the trends you've just charted, and what did it do instead?
"Eisinger: The first thing they could have done is created a task force, a big, giant task force to address a variety of financial crisis-era cases. People should remember, the financial crisis hits in the end of the Bush administration. The height is September. The election is in November. All the firms that collapse, the criminal investigations are going on, and the late Bush administration folks who are on their way out don't take a series of serious decisions and let the investigations start to percolate. That's the first mistake.
"The Obama administration inherits that mistake, but they compound it by not doing anything about it. One thing they needed to do was create a task force where you figuratively lock 50 prosecutors in a room together to look at -- five needed to look at Lehman Brothers, and 10 needed to look at the CDO business, and five needed to look at Citi, and six needed to look at JP Morgan, etc., etc. If you had, they would have found crimes.
"In fact, what happens is they don't really look in a serious way. Whenever you hear Eric Holder or Preet Bharara or Lanny Breuer saying, 'We looked seriously and nobody ever presented us a criminal case without a doubt prosecuting a high-level individual,' the secret is that they didn't look. That was mistake number one.
"Sirota: What are the continuing effects of the Justice Department culture that the Obama administration basically helped cement?
"Eisinger: The day-to-day legacy now is that the Department of Justice has lost the will and ability to prosecute top corporate executives. This is the flip side. [We] know about mass incarceration and the scandal of that, and that we disproportionately punish mostly poor, mostly people of color, in this country. This is the flip side of that, which is that we allow the rich and powerful to commit crimes with impunity if they are in executive positions at major corporations. That is a scandal, and it undermines the fairness and justice of our system and the rule of law.
"The Obama administration has contributed to it. What they do now is they settle with corporations rather than focusing on prosecuting individuals. They have lost the skill set to do with it, because settling with corporations is so easy and because of the way settlements come about, which is that we have outsourced and privatized investigations to the corporations themselves. It's basically like allowing Pablo Escobar to hire the major law firm of Medellin to investigate whether Escobar is dealing drugs or not. That surprisingly is an investigation that might yield a few street-level drug users but is not going to actually implicate Pablo himself."
And note the Obama administration -- confirmed process for handling major white-collar crime:
"[Eisinger:] We have corporations who have a scandal. They hire a law firm. The law firm does the investigation. The investigation is studiously incurious about going to the top levels, and worse than that, they negotiate, then they hand the results to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice looks over it, and then comes up with some kind of fine that the shareholders pay. The executives don't pay it. The company, the piece of paper has to pay it, but that comes out of shareholder pockets. Then those prosecutors, many of them, go to work for those law firms themselves after a few years. That is a deeply corrupt process."
"That is a deeply corrupt process." Not only that, but everyone in America knows it. These are the voters who think "the rules of the economy are rigged" and "[the very rich] have a stranglehold on Washington." Do Americans expect the Democratic Party, as currently led, to change any of this? Will a slogan -- "A Better Deal" do it?
No, Mr. Schumer, Democrats are deeply divided on "economic policy" -- dead-opposite divided in fact. And in other fact, Chuck Schumer is Wall Street's Democrat. Will he change his spots?
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Seems to me though, you have to change the singers, not just music, to get a different sound from the choir. On the other hand, you go to war with the singers you have, my more hopeful friends tell me. Let's see how this plays out.
Bret Cahill
Jul 27, 2017, 9:59:27 PM7/27/17
to
Twice.
It's our system.
If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
1. change the system, or,
2. move to N. Korea
But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
Or rather being uneducable.
<CIA>
Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
<CIA>
It's our system.
If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
1. change the system, or,
2. move to N. Korea
But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
Or rather being uneducable.
<CIA>
Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
<CIA>
nickname unavailable
Jul 27, 2017, 10:32:57 PM7/27/17
to
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Twice.
>
> It's our system.
>
> If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
>
our system was never intended for fascism. a fascist con artist won, that can happen in any system.
> Twice.
>
> It's our system.
>
> If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
>
> 1. change the system, or,
>
> 2. move to N. Korea
>
> But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
>
> Or rather being uneducable.
>
> <CIA>
>
> Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
>
> <CIA>
Bret Cahill
Jul 27, 2017, 11:23:10 PM7/27/17
to
> > Twice.
> >
> > It's our system.
> >
> > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
> our system was never intended for fascism.
Being a reactionary against fascism = more fascism, in your case, fascism on steroids.
Finally, the system, the constitution was intended to be amended as times change to preserve the sovereignty of the people _against_ fascism.
> a fascist con artist won,
What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
<CIA>
> that can happen in any system.
Here's that post you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' before you say "but but but single payer did not pass in California" :
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/JZZJ4TpndT4
Do you know why fascism doesn't happen in California?
<CIA>
Do you know the history of the California constitution?>
<CIA>
In California they had a problem with ebil incarnate politicians about 100 years ago. Eber time they went to Sacramento Southern Pacific would buy 'em off.
It was just like today with Big Pharma buying off Bob $chieffer and their shill politicians in DC.
Many Californians back then were like you. They flailed out at ebil incarnate politicians. They wack a moled. They scraped scum off ponds. They mowed mushrooms.
But the majority of Californians were smarter than you. They didn't want to waste all their time wack a moling, scraping scum and mowing mushrooms.
So they amended the Constitution of California.
Today if anyone here tries to go the Eastern liberal establishment elitist route fanny becomes enormously exposed.
Out comes the 9' loaded whip called the ballot initiative and huge bloody chunks of shill fanny goes soaring end over end over end.
So they rarely try it in the first place.
The single payer fiasco will most certainly be an outlier, a rare chance for you to see Big Pharma shill fanny popped next year with ballot initiative next. That may not even be necessary as even national Dems are talking the talk of single payer. Yea, sure they'll flip flop for awhile but that how humans conduct human progress.
But generally, the shills in California never even try it in the first place.
> > 1. change the system, or,
> >
> > 2. move to N. Korea
> then you accept that trumps win was legit?
You think anyone wants to move to N. Korea?
<CIA>
Obviously if there are only 2 choices and no one wants to move to N. Korea, the the only other choice is to change the system.
The slaver state EC is not really all that important. NAFTA Billy would have stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points and GHW Bush by double digits and become president in _any_ system, runoffs, EC whatever, and you would have still gotten kicked in the face by Billy.
You would _still_ have gotten stomped.
(For some reason you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' that point so the more you dodge it the more you'll git reminded of it.)
Anyway there's not much reason to change the EC.
There is every reason to _discuss_ amending the constitution to vote directly on Art. I, Sec. 8 issues.
The discussion _alone_ is enough to scare the elitists straight and will bring about immediate relief to the economy. Sure the NY Times will scream bloody murder but you claim they are "kaput" so that shouldn't be an issue.
An amendment to bring the U. S. up to date like California will make it permanent.
No more shilldom.
No more fascism at least not for a very long time when they eventually figger out some other end run.
Shills ain't very creative so it always takes them a long time to come up with an end run.
> > But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
> > Or rather being uneducable.
> > <CIA>
> it worked well for FDR and truman.
You don't think anything has changed in politics?
They _all_ take bribes today. It's what politicians do.
Why do you want to fight human nature?
What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
<CIA>
> > Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
> >
> > <CIA>
video61a...@gmail.com
Jul 28, 2017, 2:07:16 AM7/28/17
to
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:23:10 PM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > Twice.
> > >
> > > It's our system.
> > >
> > > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
>
> > our system was never intended for fascism.
>
> Then why are you cheerin it on?
>
i am not, what i am doing is called the devils advocate, or constructive criticism, if you were so worried about fascism, where were you in 1993 when billy shoved nafta down our throats?
> > > Twice.
> > >
> > > It's our system.
> > >
> > > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
>
> > our system was never intended for fascism.
>
> Then why are you cheerin it on?
>
> Being a reactionary against fascism = more fascism, in your case, fascism on steroids.
>
"Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people": Spencer Johnson
> Finally, the system, the constitution was intended to be amended as times change to preserve the sovereignty of the people _against_ fascism.
>
As Mussolini pointed out fascism is defined by an economic system where the policies chosen by government are indistinguishable from those desired by corporations.
we already went fascist in the 1990's.
> > a fascist con artist won,
>
> Because the people could not vote directly on economic policy. It is easy to buy off politicians and Big Pharma has plenty of dough.
>
> What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
>
> <CIA>
>
bill clinton took a wrecking ball to americas civil society, and well over half the population has been raped into poverty.
i see no positives with him at all.
> > that can happen in any system.
>
> It doesn't happen in California, at least not for long:
>
> Here's that post you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' before you say "but but but single payer did not pass in California" :
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/JZZJ4TpndT4
>
> Do you know why fascism doesn't happen in California?
>
> <CIA>
>
> Do you know the history of the California constitution?>
>
> <CIA>
>
> In California they had a problem with ebil incarnate politicians about 100 years ago. Eber time they went to Sacramento Southern Pacific would buy 'em off.
>
> It was just like today with Big Pharma buying off Bob $chieffer and their shill politicians in DC.
>
> Many Californians back then were like you. They flailed out at ebil incarnate politicians. They wack a moled. They scraped scum off ponds. They mowed mushrooms.
>
> But the majority of Californians were smarter than you. They didn't want to waste all their time wack a moling, scraping scum and mowing mushrooms.
>
> So they amended the Constitution of California.
>
> Today if anyone here tries to go the Eastern liberal establishment elitist route fanny becomes enormously exposed.
>
> Out comes the 9' loaded whip called the ballot initiative and huge bloody chunks of shill fanny goes soaring end over end over end.
>
> So they rarely try it in the first place.
>
> The single payer fiasco will most certainly be an outlier, a rare chance for you to see Big Pharma shill fanny popped next year with ballot initiative next. That may not even be necessary as even national Dems are talking the talk of single payer. Yea, sure they'll flip flop for awhile but that how humans conduct human progress.
>
> But generally, the shills in California never even try it in the first place.
>
> > > 1. change the system, or,
> > >
> > > 2. move to N. Korea
>
> > then you accept that trumps win was legit?
>
> You should be bright enough to figger it out fer yourself. Or maybe not but give it a try:
>
> You think anyone wants to move to N. Korea?
>
> <CIA>
>
> Obviously if there are only 2 choices and no one wants to move to N. Korea, the the only other choice is to change the system.
>
> The slaver state EC is not really all that important. NAFTA Billy would have stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points and GHW Bush by double digits and become president in _any_ system, runoffs, EC whatever, and you would have still gotten kicked in the face by Billy.
>
> You would _still_ have gotten stomped.
>
> (For some reason you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' that point so the more you dodge it the more you'll git reminded of it.)
>
> Anyway there's not much reason to change the EC.
>
> There is every reason to _discuss_ amending the constitution to vote directly on Art. I, Sec. 8 issues.
>
> The discussion _alone_ is enough to scare the elitists straight and will bring about immediate relief to the economy. Sure the NY Times will scream bloody murder but you claim they are "kaput" so that shouldn't be an issue.
>
> An amendment to bring the U. S. up to date like California will make it permanent.
>
> No more shilldom.
>
> No more fascism at least not for a very long time when they eventually figger out some other end run.
>
> Shills ain't very creative so it always takes them a long time to come up with an end run.
>
besides, trump is just a politician. according to some, they do not matter.
> > > But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
>
> > > Or rather being uneducable.
>
> > > <CIA>
>
> > it worked well for FDR and truman.
>
> You yourself have claimed times have changed with technology. "Free" trade is now on steroids. The container ships are larger, cheaper. It costs more to get a container from Long Beach to Sandy Eggo than from Shanghai to Long Beach. Technology makes it duck soup easy to build plants over seas.
>
> You don't think anything has changed in politics?
>
> They _all_ take bribes today. It's what politicians do.
>
> Why do you want to fight human nature?
>
> What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
>
> <CIA>
>
> > > Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
> > >
> > > <CIA>
>
> <CAP>
"According to Sykes and Matza, there are five common techniques of neutralization (read: rationalization/justification) for deviant acts. These are: (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of victim, (4) condemnation of the condemners, and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. I would have added one more—the projection of the idea that no one has clean hands. But perhaps this is already treated under “condemnation of the condemners,” in which the corrupt try to regain the moral high ground by railing against the hypocrisy of those who condemn them."
http://opinion.inquirer.net/74408/the-normalization-of-corruption
http://www.corruptie.org/en/corruption/what-is-corruption/
Corruption is an improbity or decay in the decision-making process in which a decision-maker consents to deviate or demands deviation from the criterion which should rule his or her decision-making, in exchange for a reward or for the promise or expectation of a reward, while these motives influencing his or her decision-making cannot be part of the justification of the decision.
Bret Cahill
Jul 28, 2017, 3:43:37 AM7/28/17
to
> > > > Twice.
> > > > It's our system.
> > > > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
> >
> > > our system was never intended for fascism.
> > Then why are you cheerin it on?
> i am not,
Why are you citing winger dinger Rasmussen to indulge your fantasy that tRUMP is more popular than 35%?
> > > > It's our system.
> > > > If you don't like our system you can do one of 2 things,
> >
> > > our system was never intended for fascism.
> > Then why are you cheerin it on?
> i am not,
<CIA>
> what i am doing is
That's all you ever do besides dodgin' 'n dodgin'
. . .
> > Being a reactionary against fascism = more fascism, in your case, fascism on steroids.
> no,
True progressives like Sanders would have nothing to do with your derangement syndrome any more than they'll have anything to do with tRUMP.
When was the last time you played patty cake with the Green Party?
<CIA>
> "Integrity is telling myself the truth.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
<CIA>
> And honesty is telling the truth to other people": Spencer Johnson
> > Finally, the system, the constitution was intended to be amended as times change to preserve the sovereignty of the people _against_ fascism.
> billy over turned that ability to preserve our sovereignty.
<CIA>
> on top of that,
>
> As Mussolini pointed out fascism is defined by an economic system where the policies chosen by government are indistinguishable from those desired by corporations.
<CIA>
> we already went fascist in the 1990's.
<CIA>
Incredible!
> > > a fascist con artist won,
> > Because the people could not vote directly on economic policy. It is easy to buy off politicians and Big Pharma has plenty of dough.
> then amend the constitution. it should be so easy for you to do that.
That why so many voters are as ideaphobic as you.
You've been brainwashed by the legacy media and don't know it.
> > What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
> >
> > <CIA>
crickets as perdicted.
> FDR had his faults, just like truman. but in the end, there policy positives, out weighed there policy negatives.
> bill clinton took a wrecking ball to americas civil society, and well over half the population has been raped into poverty.
<CIA>
> i see no positives with him at all.
The reason you are ideaphobic is because, as Henry George pointed out, "the rich control thought."
FDR believed George was the greatest American.
> > > that can happen in any system.
> > It doesn't happen in California, at least not for long:
> then amend the constitution.
Why is our outspoken populist less than enthused about an amendment that will put the fear of God into the shills & shill media?
<CIA>
> till then, i have to work
Dodging issues?
<CIA>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
> inside the system we have.
> > Here's that post you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' before you say "but but but single payer did not pass in California" :
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/JZZJ4TpndT4
> > Do you know why fascism doesn't happen in California?
> > <CIA>
> it sure did, what do you think prop 13 was.
<CIA>
> because of prop 13, you have for decades been chopping off one limb after another, besides pricing out of the housing market, a huge portion of your citizens.
The hold up there is the same as the hold up on other fronts:
The legacy media are paid to keep it out of the debate.
> > Do you know the history of the California constitution?>
> > <CIA>
crickets as perdicted
> but its not the constitution of the u.s.a.
<CIA>
You dodged the issue:
The issue is the states are laboratories of democracy.
One state figgered out how to solve the ebil incarnate politician getting bought off by big bidness problem.
Why not do that nationally so everyone can benefit from California's example?
<CIA>
> if you want to amend the constitution,
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
. . .
> > In California they had a problem with ebil incarnate politicians about 100 years ago. Eber time they went to Sacramento Southern Pacific would buy 'em off.
> > It was just like today with Big Pharma buying off Bob $chieffer and their shill politicians in DC.
> > Many Californians back then were like you. They flailed out at ebil incarnate politicians. They wack a moled. They scraped scum off ponds. They mowed mushrooms.
> > But the majority of Californians were smarter than you. They didn't want to waste all their time wack a moling, scraping scum and mowing mushrooms.
> > So they amended the Constitution of California.
> > Out comes the 9' loaded whip called the ballot initiative and huge bloody chunks of shill fanny goes soaring end over end over end.
> > So they rarely try it in the first place.
> > The single payer fiasco will most certainly be an outlier, a rare chance for you to see Big Pharma shill fanny popped next year with ballot initiative next. That may not even be necessary as even national Dems are talking the talk of single payer. Yea, sure they'll flip flop for awhile but that how humans conduct human progress.
> > But generally, the shills in California never even try it in the first place.
> then get busy and amend the constitution.
Give it a try and see what happens. (Just don't mention my name.)
> i have repeatedly said that to you, whats the hold up?
Why do you keep dodging that point?
<CIA>
Sure you can stick your head into the sand like you always do and pretend the NY Times doesn't exist but most know what happen if you discuss popular control of economic policy:
The New York Times will write an editorial saying, "He's worse than Hitler . . ."
That's the only thing keeping the Bern out of power:
The Bern is afraid of the NY Times.
> > > > 1. change the system, or,
> > > >
> > > > 2. move to N. Korea
> > > then you accept that trumps win was legit?
> > You should be bright enough to figger it out fer yourself. Or maybe not but give it a try:
> > You think anyone wants to move to N. Korea?
> > <CIA>
crickets as perdicted
> then its our system correct:)
> > Obviously if there are only 2 choices and no one wants to move to N. Korea, the the only other choice is to change the system.
> get going.
You have scant little time to get the ebil incarnate Billy.
That's why you are so feverish, isn't it?
You wasted decades flailing out power powerlessly at ebil Billy.
Yet Billy won.
Twice.
Against 3 opponents.
Twice.
NAFTA Billy stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points.
Twice.
As they say, you win some and lose some in politics.
Unless you suffer from politician derangement syndrome.
Then you always lose.
> > The slaver state EC is not really all that important. NAFTA Billy would have stomped protectionist Perot by 27 points and GHW Bush by double digits and become president in _any_ system, runoffs, EC whatever, and you would have still gotten kicked in the face by Billy.
> > You would _still_ have gotten stomped.
> > (For some reason you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' that point so the more you dodge it the more you'll git reminded of it.)
> > Anyway there's not much reason to change the EC.
> > There is every reason to _discuss_ amending the constitution to vote directly on Art. I, Sec. 8 issues.
> > The discussion _alone_ is enough to scare the elitists straight and will bring about immediate relief to the economy. Sure the NY Times will scream bloody murder but you claim they are "kaput" so that shouldn't be an issue.
> > An amendment to bring the U. S. up to date like California will make it permanent.
> > No more shilldom.
> > No more fascism at least not for a very long time when they eventually figger out some other end run.
> > Shills ain't very creative so it always takes them a long time to come up with an end run.
> whats taking you so long?
For example, it took you several _years_ for you to abandon top down.
Are you suggesting most others are brighter and faster than you?
<CIA>
> besides, trump is just a politician.
> according to some, they do not matter.
You want to keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results.
> > > > But if you keep trying the same system over and over while expecting different results, well, that's the definition of insanity.
> > > > Or rather being uneducable.
> > > > <CIA>
> > > it worked well for FDR and truman.
> > You yourself have claimed times have changed with technology. "Free" trade is now on steroids. The container ships are larger, cheaper. It costs more to get a container from Long Beach to Sandy Eggo than from Shanghai to Long Beach. Technology makes it duck soup easy to build plants over seas.
> technology makes murder easier also,
You want to dicker with the tariffs, trade agreements, etc. because "trade and job outsourcing is on steroids." OK, fine enough, but don't claim that's not changing the system.
What you do _not_ understand is you'll _never_ be able to change the economic system w/o changing the political system first. The reason is politicians are so easy to buy off.
For some reason that additional step is like the Great Wall of China to you.
Most others have figured it out.
> but that does not mean we should accept it.
As times change the founders intended for us to change the system.
Not flail out powerlessly because everyone isn't as pure as the driven snow.
> > You don't think anything has changed in politics?
> > They _all_ take bribes today. It's what politicians do.
> > Why do you want to fight human nature?
> its been that way forever, and always will.
Lincoln, even Jefferson commented on that danger.
> its why trump does not matter, who cares what he does.
> > What part of "pure as the driven snow politicians ain't gonna happen" do you not understand?
> > <CIA>
> what part of treason do you not understand?
<CIA>
The part where colluding with the Russians is _not_ treason.
<CIA>
You stepped right into that one.
If Billy committed treason with his trade deals, why wasn't he impeached for that?
<CIA>
If Billy committed treason with his trade deals, why didn't you spend 5 cents for a single copy of a single letter you wrote about this treason?
<CIA>
Obviously you never thought it was very important.
> > > > Here's a list of more posts you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a looneytarian:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/CRZ7bBYDmYg
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/RYukqrqvWAQ
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/QMPOs1fxtS4
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/vg4LSiUsUp0
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/piuCXYIn8dw
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/kNbzPjVTxaw
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/ALZcaRPCQCg
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics.economics/EyImPEgI8ms
> > > >
> > > > <CIA>
> >
> > <CAP>
(Even worse they dodge issues like looneytarians.)
"Indeed, from evolution to data about our economy to the science of vaccines to the threats we face in the world, they reject vast subjects rooted in fact in order to have reality conform to their worldviews."
"They don't dig for truth; they skim the media for anything that makes them feel better about themselves. To many of them, knowledge is not a useful tool but a cunning barrier elites have created to keep power from the average man and woman."
-- David Rothkopf
0 new messages