Comment Re:Its been done before (Score 1) 478
The CIA did not help form Al Qaeda.
The CIA did not help form Al Qaeda.
The problem is the "fascist" label. Poorly-educated Americans only associate it with Nazi Germany and Hitler and the Holocaust, and don't really understand the meaning of the term, which is corporate control over government.
Only the poorly educated believe that fascism has anything to do with business corporations.
Fascists have a view of world history in which ethnic or national groups are primary, and a Hobbesian theory of society and the State where the nation must be reified as an individual, where disagreement and competition must be forcibly suppressed. Economic ideology is corporatist - again, having nothing to do with business corporations. Rather, it is a form of guild socialism - central planning, where market competition is suppressed by the State, and sectors of society and the economy, such as agriculture, business, labor, etc. are regimented into organizations under a single governing body and forced to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of each organization and the body as a whole.
...is between Charles Schumer and a television camera.
It's funny how different people have different interpretations about what does and does not constitute "ignoring the constitution." Thankfully, the constitution itself spells out who gets to decide, and that is the branch known as the Supreme Court.
The Constitution does not expressly give the supreme Court the power of judicial review - the ability to void laws.
If the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional, according to the constitution itself. The constitution isn't dead, according to the constitution itself, the constitution has been followed and is still very much alive.
The Constitution is dead. The parts that explicitly and in plain language limited the power of the federal government, was killed off by the Court (mostly after FDR threatened to pack the Court with his cronies), using tenuous, convoluted rationales for doing so.
Ignoring the Constitution is about as unpatriotic as it is possible to be.
The left has ignored the Constitution for decades. As a document that once strictly limited the power of the federal government, it's dead. FDR killed it.
Yeah, Japan attacked in the 1940s, after several years of financial aggression on our part
"Financial aggression" that was a response to Japanese actions such as the Rape of Nanking.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most widely misunderstood expression, used a few times by Marx (and it was a very clumsy wording from him, indeed). What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society. He didn't mean by it a Stalin-like totalitarian state.
Marx envisioned and intended totalitarianism. See his brutal condemnations of "bourgeois freedom".
He was even clear that for him, "dictatorship of the proletariat", was something like Paris' Commune. Which was the most democratic form of government that existed in modern history in France. In which elected representative could be recalled at any time at the demand of the basis. Which abolished death penalty, and gave right to vote to women, as early as 1870. Even the "army" of the Commune (the National Guard) was democratic, with the officers elected by the guards.
It seems that what you mean by "democracy", means totalitarian terror and murder to everyone else. The Paris Commune was a military coup against a democratically elected government. Once they were in power, the death penalty was imposed for damn near everything. The "committee of public safety" was brought back with the same name, intended to strike terror into the hearts of those under its rule.
There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA).
Only a madman could possibly conflate the unfree, unfair and rigged elections of Cuba to any election in the United States.
And it has several very positive aspects. One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).
Statistics pulled straight from Castro's ass, with no way to independently verify them.
Anyone is free to associate with others, or speak freely as they see fit. But if I'm paying them with my money to do a job for me, and I don't like what they say about me, I should be free to stop paying them money. To say otherwise implies that others have a right to the money I earned.
...I should be able to fire them, for whatever reason I choose. I guess that's the way it was before freedom of association in America was killed off. It may be bad business, and I personally wouldn't want to work for anyone who had such a stringent policy, but any employer should be free to make such decisions, and be free to either benefit or suffer the consequences.
A hatchet job on Monsanto? Allow me to quote:
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.
Without copies of the transcripts and proposed revisions, the assertions of the reporters and Project Censored are merely statements of opinion.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akreâ(TM)s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
Again, I want to see actual court transcripts detailing the arguments of the Fox attorneys.
Just another poster? Just another defender of the status quo pandering to the owning class in hopes of joining the club. They laugh at you, you know, and will never let you in their club because you are a fucking peasant, to be used and used up and thrown away.
Better to be "used" than murdered, which is what happens when those much like yourself achieve the absolute power they seek.
False equivalency. Fox News has been proven, again and again, to lie on air nearly continuously. Heck, they fought and won a lawsuit defending their right to lie on air.
I want to see court transcripts clearly showing that Fox attorneys argued that the station in question had the right to lie.
What actually happened was that the two reporters who filed the lawsuit, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were probably trying to do a hatchet-job on Monsanto. When the Fox affiliate station asked them to balance it out with Monsanto's side of the story, they refused, stalled for nine months, and were fired. They sued under a Florida "whistleblower" statute, and lost. The court did not decide whether or not the report was truthful. The court did not say that WTVT, the Fox affiliate, had a right to lie. The court simply said that no law was broken. There is no evidence that WTVT asked Wilson and Akre to lie.
In this view, which I believe is pretty well supported by history, Muslim extremists are more of a symptom than a cause of U.S. policy
Muslim "extremists" have been on the war path ever since the time of Muhammad.
So what country do you live in?
In the US, there's a chance, depending on the state you're in, that you'll be put to death for capital murder, not adultery.
Assuming that everything you mention is true, that isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what Stalin did to the peasants.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
