According to Obama's Czar, Mark Lloyd - Whites must 'step down' and give power and wealth to blacks
Escape_the_Cult_Now
initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
Joe Cool
wrote:
Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
claim.
Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
lab~rat >:-)
<joeco...@live.com> puked:
>On Oct 27, 10:28ÔøΩam, "Escape_the_Cult_Now" <killef...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
>> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
>> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
>> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>>
>> http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>
>Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
>SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
>allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
>positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
>claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>
>Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
>ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
Comrade Barry. He answers to no one except the president.
Is this the way America is supposed to work? Yes or no answer.
>And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
>the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
funds aborting babies in foreign countries. He must love killing
babies to piss our money away doing so. Hell, he'd even rake out the
corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Joe Cool
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>
> >On Oct 27, 10:28Êam, "Escape_the_Cult_Now" <killef...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
> >> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
> >> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
> >> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>
> >>http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>
> >Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
> >SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
> >allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
> >positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
> >claim.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>
A voice track over a slide. How do I know that ius actually Lloyd
speaking. And if it is genuine, just when did he say it?
>
>
> >Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
> >ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
>
> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
> Comrade Barry. He answers to no one except the president.
Since he answers directly to the president and has no real power, then
I don't see asny reason for him to be vetted by Congress.
>
> Is this the way America is supposed to work? Yes or no answer.
It's how it works now. I f you don't like it, work to change the
rules.
>
> >And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
> >the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
>
> The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
> funds aborting babies in foreign countries. He must love killing
> babies to piss our money away doing so. Hell, he'd even rake out the
> corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
I think you meant that he overturned a bill that cut off funding for
overseas abortions. It wasn't a law or bill, it was a policy put in
place by Bush.
And I happen to agree with Obama when he said the ban had "undermined
efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in
developing countries".
>
> It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
You got nothing but bullshit that you couldn't prove in a million
years.
lab~rat >:-)
<joeco...@live.com> puked:
>On Oct 27, 11:15ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>>
>> >On Oct 27, 10:28ÔøΩam, "Escape_the_Cult_Now" <killef...@invalid.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
>> >> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
>> >> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
>> >> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>>
>> >>http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>>
>> >Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
>> >SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
>> >allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
>> >positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
>> >claim.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>>
>
>A voice track over a slide. How do I know that ius actually Lloyd
>speaking. And if it is genuine, just when did he say it?
There's certainly a TOS policy at youtube, and if there's a legal
issue it would be removed. If there was a legal issue, there would be
a C&D to FOX regarding the broadcast. In fact, the only one that is
questioning the validity of that recording is you. Not even the
president.
Isn't that a little odd and silly of you.
>>
>>
>> >Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
>> >ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
>>
>> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
>> Comrade Barry. ÔøΩHe answers to no one except the president.
>
>Since he answers directly to the president and has no real power, then
>I don't see asny reason for him to be vetted by Congress.
You say he doesn't have any real power. I don't know that to be the
truth. In fact, you don't know that to be the truth.
>
>>
>> Is this the way America is supposed to work? ÔøΩYes or no answer.
>
>It's how it works now. I f you don't like it, work to change the
>rules.
>
>>
>> >And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
>> >the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
>>
>> The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
>> funds aborting babies in foreign countries. ÔøΩHe must love killing
>> babies to piss our money away doing so. ÔøΩHell, he'd even rake out the
>> corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
>
>I think you meant that he overturned a bill that cut off funding for
>overseas abortions. It wasn't a law or bill, it was a policy put in
>place by Bush.
>
>And I happen to agree with Obama when he said the ban had "undermined
>efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in
>developing countries".
Like a true baby killer. Why would we have to fund baby killing with
our taxpayer dollars?
Obama ran on the idea that we were gonna have to tighten our belt, yet
the first thing he did was something that cost us money and gave us no
return. Really, you're down with that?
>
>>
>> It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
>
>You got nothing but bullshit that you couldn't prove in a million
>years.
It's tough defending Obama, isn't it?
Joe Cool
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 27, 11:15Êam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
> >> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
> >> >> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
> >> >> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
> >> >> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>
> >> >>http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>
> >> >Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
> >> >SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
> >> >allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
> >> >positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
> >> >claim.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>
> >A voice track over a slide. How do I know that ius actually Lloyd
> >speaking. And if it is genuine, just when did he say it?
>
> There's certainly a TOS policy at youtube, and if there's a legal
> issue it would be removed. If there was a legal issue, there would be
> a C&D to FOX regarding the broadcast. In fact, the only one that is
> questioning the validity of that recording is you. Not even the
> president.
>
> Isn't that a little odd and silly of you.
Ask me if I care.
>
>
>
> >> >Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
> >> >ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
>
> >> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
> >> Comrade Barry. ÊHe answers to no one except the president.
>
> >Since he answers directly to the president and has no real power, then
> >I don't see asny reason for him to be vetted by Congress.
>
> You say he doesn't have any real power. I don't know that to be the
> truth. In fact, you don't know that to be the truth.
>
The term czar was merely made up by the press. They are advisors to
the president. Do you doubt that? If so, prove that they are anything
else. And NO advisor has any real power BY DEFINITION.
If you can prove that they DO have any power it should be simple for
you to do. Can you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Is this the way America is supposed to work? ÊYes or no answer.
>
> >It's how it works now. I f you don't like it, work to change the
> >rules.
>
> >> >And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
> >> >the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
>
> >> The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
> >> funds aborting babies in foreign countries. ÊHe must love killing
> >> babies to piss our money away doing so. ÊHell, he'd even rake out the
> >> corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
>
> >I think you meant that he overturned a bill that cut off funding for
> >overseas abortions. It wasn't a law or bill, it was a policy put in
> >place by Bush.
>
> >And I happen to agree with Obama when he said the ban had "undermined
> >efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in
> >developing countries".
>
> Like a true baby killer. Why would we have to fund baby killing with
> our taxpayer dollars?
We aren't funding killing babaies. We are funding programs that helps
women in a very serious time of need. If the funding wasn't there more
woman would die from botched abortions.
>
> Obama ran on the idea that we were gonna have to tighten our belt, yet
> the first thing he did was something that cost us money and gave us no
> return. Really, you're down with that?
>
He reversed a policy that is typically supported by democrat
presidents and not be republican presidents.
And the amount of funding in paltry compared to overall government
spending. Less than a drop in the bucket so to speak.
>
>
> >> It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
>
> >You got nothing but bullshit that you couldn't prove in a million
> >years.
>
> It's tough defending Obama, isn't it?
Nope.
lab~rat >:-)
<joeco...@live.com> puked:
>On Oct 27, 12:47ÔøΩpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 27, 11:15ÔøΩam, "lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>> >> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 27, 10:28ÔøΩam, "Escape_the_Cult_Now" <killef...@invalid.invalid>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
>> >> >> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
>> >> >> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
>> >> >> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>>
>> >> >>http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>>
>> >> >Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
>> >> >SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
>> >> >allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
>> >> >positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
>> >> >claim.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>>
>> >A voice track over a slide. How do I know that ius actually Lloyd
>> >speaking. And if it is genuine, just when did he say it?
>>
>> There's certainly a TOS policy at youtube, and if there's a legal
>> issue it would be removed. ÔøΩIf there was a legal issue, there would be
>> a C&D to FOX regarding the broadcast. ÔøΩIn fact, the only one that is
>> questioning the validity of that recording is you. ÔøΩNot even the
>> president.
>>
>> Isn't that a little odd and silly of you.
>
>Ask me if I care.
Just between friends, you might want to care a little if you're
looking for some credibility.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
>> >> >ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
>>
>> >> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
>> >> Comrade Barry. ÔøΩHe answers to no one except the president.
>>
>> >Since he answers directly to the president and has no real power, then
>> >I don't see asny reason for him to be vetted by Congress.
>>
>> You say he doesn't have any real power. ÔøΩI don't know that to be the
>> truth. ÔøΩIn fact, you don't know that to be the truth.
>>
>
>The term czar was merely made up by the press. They are advisors to
>the president. Do you doubt that? If so, prove that they are anything
>else. And NO advisor has any real power BY DEFINITION.
>
>If you can prove that they DO have any power it should be simple for
>you to do. Can you?
You claimed to know all about their extension of power, do your own
work and prove it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Is this the way America is supposed to work? ÔøΩYes or no answer.
>>
>> >It's how it works now. I f you don't like it, work to change the
>> >rules.
>>
>> >> >And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
>> >> >the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
>>
>> >> The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
>> >> funds aborting babies in foreign countries. ÔøΩHe must love killing
>> >> babies to piss our money away doing so. ÔøΩHell, he'd even rake out the
>> >> corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
>>
>> >I think you meant that he overturned a bill that cut off funding for
>> >overseas abortions. It wasn't a law or bill, it was a policy put in
>> >place by Bush.
>>
>> >And I happen to agree with Obama when he said the ban had "undermined
>> >efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in
>> >developing countries".
>>
>> Like a true baby killer. ÔøΩWhy would we have to fund baby killing with
>> our taxpayer dollars?
>
>We aren't funding killing babaies. We are funding programs that helps
>women in a very serious time of need. If the funding wasn't there more
>woman would die from botched abortions.
Then why don't we just systematically sterilize them? That way we
won't have to go back and do the job again.
And to paraphrase one of your quotes, ask me if I care about some
American-hating jackass in a 3rd world country that wants an abortion?
Why should I pay to kill their babies when I could finance the murder
of liberal babies right here in the US? ;)
>
>>
>> Obama ran on the idea that we were gonna have to tighten our belt, yet
>> the first thing he did was something that cost us money and gave us no
>> return. ÔøΩReally, you're down with that?
>>
>
>He reversed a policy that is typically supported by democrat
>presidents and not be republican presidents.
>
>And the amount of funding in paltry compared to overall government
>spending. Less than a drop in the bucket so to speak.
Enough drops in the bucket and you have an ocean, as you can clearly
see with Barry's nutzo policies.
>
>>
>>
>> >> It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
>>
>> >You got nothing but bullshit that you couldn't prove in a million
>> >years.
>>
>> It's tough defending Obama, isn't it?
>
>Nope.
It is, you just think you're actually doing it.
Joe Cool
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 27, 12:47Êpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
> >> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>
> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cool
> >> >> <joecool1...@live.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> "Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic
> >> >> >> initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a
> >> >> >> senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and
> >> >> >> has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN. "
>
> >> >> >>http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78489
>
> >> >> >Interesting that the story at the link you posted claims that Lloyd
> >> >> >SUGGESTED that ""white people" step down from positions of power to
> >> >> >allow "more people of color, gays" and "other people" to take those
> >> >> >positions." but neither of the direct quotes from Lloyd backup that
> >> >> >claim.
>
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2aU2Bdg2Q
>
> >> >A voice track over a slide. How do I know that ius actually Lloyd
> >> >speaking. And if it is genuine, just when did he say it?
>
> >> There's certainly a TOS policy at youtube, and if there's a legal
> >> a C&D to FOX regarding the broadcast. ÊIn fact, the only one that is
> >> questioning the validity of that recording is you. ÊNot even the
> >> president.
>
> >> Isn't that a little odd and silly of you.
>
> >Ask me if I care.
>
> Just between friends, you might want to care a little if you're
> looking for some credibility.
>
I don't give a shit what you think of my credibility.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >Lloyd is a czar, and as such does not weild any direct power. He is an
> >> >> >ADVISOR to the president, nothing more.
>
> >> >> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
> >> >> Comrade Barry. æHe answers to no one except the president.
>
> >> >Since he answers directly to the president and has no real power, then
> >> >I don't see asny reason for him to be vetted by Congress.
>
> >> You say he doesn't have any real power. ÊI don't know that to be the
> >> truth. ÊIn fact, you don't know that to be the truth.
>
> >The term czar was merely made up by the press. They are advisors to
> >the president. Do you doubt that? If so, prove that they are anything
> >else. And NO advisor has any real power BY DEFINITION.
>
> >If you can prove that they DO have any power it should be simple for
> >you to do. Can you?
>
> You claimed to know all about their extension of power, do your own
> work and prove it.
>
I said that the don't have any real power. ou seem to think they do. I
cannot prove a negative. You, on the other could prove a positive. IF
it were true.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Is this the way America is supposed to work? æYes or no answer.
>
> >> >It's how it works now. I f you don't like it, work to change the
> >> >rules.
>
> >> >> >And I also suspect the content of any website that is still promoting
> >> >> >the LIE that Obama favors "killing babies" as this site does.
>
> >> >> The very first thing Obama did as president was overturn a bill that
> >> >> funds aborting babies in foreign countries. æHe must love killing
> >> >> babies to piss our money away doing so. æHell, he'd even rake out the
> >> >> corpse of his own grandchild, considering it punishment.
>
> >> >I think you meant that he overturned a bill that cut off funding for
> >> >overseas abortions. It wasn't a law or bill, it was a policy put in
> >> >place by Bush.
>
> >> >And I happen to agree with Obama when he said the ban had "undermined
> >> >efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in
> >> >developing countries".
>
> >> Like a true baby killer. ÊWhy would we have to fund baby killing with
> >> our taxpayer dollars?
>
> >We aren't funding killing babaies. We are funding programs that helps
> >women in a very serious time of need. If the funding wasn't there more
> >woman would die from botched abortions.
>
> Then why don't we just systematically sterilize them? That way we
> won't have to go back and do the job again.
Yet new heights of absurdity.
>
> And to paraphrase one of your quotes, ask me if I care about some
> American-hating jackass in a 3rd world country that wants an abortion?
> Why should I pay to kill their babies when I could finance the murder
> of liberal babies right here in the US? ;)
So every woman that lives overseas and want an abortion is hates
America?
Another new height for your absurdity.
>
>
>
> >> Obama ran on the idea that we were gonna have to tighten our belt, yet
> >> the first thing he did was something that cost us money and gave us no
> >> return. ÊReally, you're down with that?
>
> >He reversed a policy that is typically supported by democrat
> >presidents and not be republican presidents.
>
> >And the amount of funding in paltry compared to overall government
> >spending. Less than a drop in the bucket so to speak.
>
> Enough drops in the bucket and you have an ocean, as you can clearly
> see with Barry's nutzo policies.
Not me.
>
>
>
> >> >> It's not a lie, the president loves the idea of killing babies.
>
> >> >You got nothing but bullshit that you couldn't prove in a million
> >> >years.
>
> >> It's tough defending Obama, isn't it?
>
> >Nope.
>
> It is, you just think you're actually doing it.
Ask me again if I give a rat's ass what you think.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Lloyd was never vetted by congress and was appointed directly by
> Comrade Barry. He answers to no one except the president.
>
> Is this the way America is supposed to work? Yes or no answer.
As more and more decisions are made by the state, it is impossible to
make these decisions in a plausibly democratic manner, thus we see
increasing concentration of power and less and less accountability of
power, America following the path of Europe.
lab~rat >:-)
<joeco...@live.com> puked:
>
>So every woman that lives overseas and want an abortion is hates
>America?
Is this what it has come to? Really?
*Anarcissie*
Perhaps that's a necessary development given the direction
and intentions of the ruling class and the desire of the common
people for more and more stuff. They all need a big, smoothly-
running machine, the ruling class to continue to extend its
dominion to every corner of the earth, and the folk to get
that stuff they want.
Although I don't see why the president or any other official
shouldn't be able to appoint assistants and so forth, as long
as we have officials and the legislature has voted to pay the
costs of having them. Apparently these "czars" are anything
but absolute monarchs; they're high-level gofers.
Whites have long since stepped down and given power
and wealth to Blacks, to the extent of evening things out
a bit -- today, Whites have to put up with the possibility
that a non-White may be a doctor, a lawyer or a
business manager and live in any section of town where
he or she can pay the rent. Blacks got equal rights, and
this was a big diminution of White power, but it headed
off having some kind of race war like those in Yugoslavia
or Rwanda. I'd say it was a good deal, but if you want
to argue with it, go ahead.
James A. Donald
> > As more and more decisions are made by the state, it
> > is impossible to make these decisions in a plausibly
> > democratic manner, thus we see increasing
> > concentration of power and less and less
> > accountability of power, America following the path
> > of Europe.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Perhaps that's a necessary development given the
> direction and intentions of the ruling class and the
> desire of the common people for more and more stuff.
Yet the common people have the most stuff in those lands
where the government interferes least in the economy.
Indeed, the great lesson of globalization for
governments is that you can control how people dispose
of chewing gum without buggering the economy, you can
control what they read, you can control what they are
allowed to say, you can shoot people for thought crimes,
but if you shoot people for economic crimes, you will
bugger the economy.
> They all need a big, smoothly- running machine
When the government runs it, it does not run smoothly.
The vast majority of the mortgage losses that brought
down the financial system were in Fannie, Freddie, and
the FHA. As Sarah Palin says:
: : We got into this mess because of government
: : interference in the first place. The mortgage
: : crisis that led to the collapse of the
: : financial market, it was rooted in a
: : good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire to
: : increase home ownership among those who
: : couldn’t yet afford to own a home. In so many
: : cases, politicians on the right and the left,
: : they wanted to take credit for an increase in
: : home ownership among those with lower
: : incomes. But the rules of the marketplace are
: : not adaptable to the mere whims of
: : politicians.
> Although I don't see why the president or any other
> official shouldn't be able to appoint assistants and
> so forth
Traditionally, the constitution has been interpreted as
requiring these assistants to be subject to
congressional scrutiny.
In a corporation, the board is not supposed to interfere
with CEO appointments, but can, and frequently does,
demand that high ranking corporate officers report to it
and tell it what is going on - and if anyone asked to
report instead claimed CEO privilege and refused to rat
on his boss, the CEO would be fired in five minutes. The
usual corporate system is analogous to the British
parliamentary system, where the prime minister is
usually entitled to choose his ministers at will, but
the ministers have to report to parliament, and if the
party does not like the reports, the prime minister will
suddenly lose his job. In a presidential system, the
legislature cannot fire the president at will, but it
does get to meddle in his appointments.
So what we are now getting is a system where a president
gets prime ministerial discretion, but not, however,
prime ministerial scrutiny and supervision.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > As more and more decisions are made by the state, it
> > > is impossible to make these decisions in a plausibly
> > > democratic manner, thus we see increasing
> > > concentration of power and less and less
> > > accountability of power, America following the path
> > > of Europe.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Perhaps that's a necessary development given the
> > direction and intentions of the ruling class and the
> > desire of the common people for more and more stuff.
>
> Yet the common people have the most stuff in those lands
> where the government interferes least in the economy.
>
> Indeed, the great lesson of globalization for
> governments is that you can control how people dispose
> of chewing gum without buggering the economy, you can
> control what they read, you can control what they are
> allowed to say, you can shoot people for thought crimes,
> but if you shoot people for economic crimes, you will
> bugger the economy.
I believe the common people have the most stuff
in Western Europe and the United States where the
government interferes mightily with the economy.
However, whether the people get stuff or not is only
part of the picture. The other part is the imperial
ambition of the ruling class. For that they certainly
need a big state with no question about who's in
charge.
> > They all need a big, smoothly- running machine
>
> When the government runs it, it does not run smoothly.
> The vast majority of the mortgage losses that brought
> down the financial system were in Fannie, Freddie, and
> the FHA. As Sarah Palin says:
>
> : : We got into this mess because of government
> : : interference in the first place. The mortgage
> : : crisis that led to the collapse of the
> : : financial market, it was rooted in a
> : : good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire to
> : : increase home ownership among those who
> : : couldn’t yet afford to own a home. In so many
> : : cases, politicians on the right and the left,
> : : they wanted to take credit for an increase in
> : : home ownership among those with lower
> : : incomes. But the rules of the marketplace are
> : : not adaptable to the mere whims of
> : : politicians.
The mortgage crisis was caused by government
interference, but the interference was the inflation
of credit by Bubbles Greenspan. The subprime
mortgages were but one aspect of money trying
to find somewhere to go and looking for love in
all the wrong places.
> > Although I don't see why the president or any other
> > official shouldn't be able to appoint assistants and
> > so forth
>
> Traditionally, the constitution has been interpreted as
> requiring these assistants to be subject to
> congressional scrutiny.
>
> In a corporation, the board is not supposed to interfere
> with CEO appointments, but can, and frequently does,
> demand that high ranking corporate officers report to it
> and tell it what is going on - and if anyone asked to
> report instead claimed CEO privilege and refused to rat
> on his boss, the CEO would be fired in five minutes. The
> usual corporate system is analogous to the British
> parliamentary system, where the prime minister is
> usually entitled to choose his ministers at will, but
> the ministers have to report to parliament, and if the
> party does not like the reports, the prime minister will
> suddenly lose his job. In a presidential system, the
> legislature cannot fire the president at will, but it
> does get to meddle in his appointments.
>
> So what we are now getting is a system where a president
> gets prime ministerial discretion, but not, however,
> prime ministerial scrutiny and supervision.
It's a matter of rank. As I said, the "czars" appear
to be gofers. As of yet they don't seem to have any
independent power. Not that I care.
Escape_the_Cult_Now
Escape_the_Cult_Now
Escape_the_Cult_Now
James A. Donald
> > Yet the common people have the most stuff in those
> > lands where the government interferes least in the
> > economy.
> >
> > Indeed, the great lesson of globalization for
> > governments is that you can control how people
> > dispose of chewing gum without buggering the
> > economy, you can control what they read, you can
> > control what they are allowed to say, you can shoot
> > people for thought crimes, but if you shoot people
> > for economic crimes, you will bugger the economy.
"*Anarcissie*"
> I believe the common people have the most stuff in
> Western Europe and the United States where the
> government interferes mightily with the economy.
Elsewhere in the world, the government for the most part
interferes far more, and where it has recently
diminished its interference, as in China, people are
rapidly acquiring more stuff.
You can see socialism from space. On the "earth at
night" photographs, the borders between substantially
more socialist and substantially less socialist
countries show up as the socialist side of the border
being substantially darker than the other side.
Within the west, in America the government interferes
less than Europe, and the people have more stuff than in Europe,
within America the government has recently begun to
interfere more, and lo and behold, people are finding
they have less stuff.
Similarly, compare North Korea and South Korea. Compare
East and West Germany before unification. Compare Hong
Kong and China before unification.