Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: the obama administration wants julian assange

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 23, 2012, 7:37 a.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The U.S. intellectual Noam Chomsky does not discard the possibility that the U.K. could venture in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to capture the journalist and founder of Wikilieaks, Julian Assange.

Here we replicate a part of the interview published on the mentioned website. The complete document it is found on this address: http://bit.ly/QidZJ1

The United Stated government has issued today a statement in which it declares that this matter is a problem between the Brits, the Ecuadorians and the Swedes. Do you find this argument honest? Is the United States really not interested in the faith of Julian Assange?

The statement plainly cannot be taken seriously. The shadow looming over this whole affair is the expectation that Sweden would quickly send Assange to the US, where the chances of his receiving a fair trial are virtually zero. That much is evident from the brutal and illegal treatment of Bradley Manning, and the general government and media hysteria about Assange. These matters aside, for those who believe that citizens have a right to know what their government is planning and doing – that is, who have a lingering affection for democracy – Assange should not be facing trial, but rather should be granted a medal of honor.

In an interview with Amy Goodman, from Democracy Now! You affirmed that the main reason for governmental secrets is to protect governments from their own people. Is it for the first time in history the world is seen Diplomacy’s true colours.

Anyone who studies declassified documents soon becomes aware that government secrecy is largely an effort to protect policy makers from scrutiny by citizens, not to protect the country from enemies. No doubt secrecy is sometimes justified, but it is rare, and in the case of the Wikileaks exposures, I have not seen a single example.

This is, however, by no means the first time that “diplomacy’s true colours” have been exposed by released documents. The Pentagon Papers is a famous case. But the truth of the matter is that it is constant. The record exposed even in officially declassified documents is often quite shocking, but it is rarely known to the general public, or even most of scholarship. On a more broader aspect, and to end this interview, Slavoj Zizek said we are not destroying capitalism, but only witnessing how the system destroys itself. Are the Occupy movements, the financial crisis in Europe and the United States, the rise of Latin America and other former marginal regions and the Wikileaks case signs of the crumbling end of the capitalist system?

Far from it. The financial crisis in Europe could be resolved, but it is being used as a lever to undermine the European social contract; it is basically a case of class war. The record of the US Federal Reserve is better than that of its European counterpart, but is still far too limited, and other measures too would be quite possible to alleviate the severe crisis in the US, a crisis of unemployment, primarily. For the general population, unemployment is the major concern, but the financial institutions, which have a dominant position in the economy and political system, are more interested in restricting the deficit, and their concerns prevail. In general, there is a huge gap between the public will and policy. This is only one case. The rise of Latin America is a phenomenon of historic significance, but it is far from shaking the state capitalist system. And while Wikileaks and the Occupy movements are an irritant to the powerful – and a boon for the public – they are hardly a threat to reigning power systems.

105 Comments

105 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Area51 (31) from Alamo, NV 2 years ago

Why does a country that pretends to be so good have to hide so many secrets? The gov wants to know all our secrets, but won't tell us theirs. If they were doing good things they wouldn't mind telling everybody.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I agree

[-] 2 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

we are not destroying capitalism, but only witnessing how the system destroys itself.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. 'WkiLeaks' & Julian Assange, some relevant links :

From the last link : "Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution". On 18 August, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the US was conducting an "unprecedented" pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections. Among Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum is Assange's abandonment "by the state of which he is a citizen". In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Assange and WikiLeaks had committed no crime. His persecution is an assault on us all and on freedom."

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Free The Unfree ~{~

Solidarity -@- JA ~*~

Righteous bumpage ~

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

The more truth the better the world, the more lies the worse it is.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

~}~ veritas vos liberabit ~(~

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

I hope so, "lies will condemn you" is the other side of the medal.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”

― Mark Twain

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

I'm not so sure about that one...

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when ones lies, one must repeat it for cover

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

Sometimes 3-4-5-6-7 times...almost a brainwash.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

B+ve ... like my Blood Group :-)

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

That one i don't understand

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

As you had said : "lies will condemn you" is the other side of the medal", above - I understood your cautionary comment but was trying to obviate that which is true yet -ve (='negative') with something +ve (='positive') by saying : "Be Positive" like my blood group ;-) That all 'P' & adieu mon ami et a plus tard.

pax vobis. ...

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

Ah, I understand now, I try to. Are you occupied on that other internet site? Someone gave me a link to it some time ago, I would be interested in your opinion about it.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

and do you know the truth?

[-] 1 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

Not all of it for sure...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

good answer

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No doubt Obama does want Assange. Obama is at war with whistle blowers, that's an incontrovertible fact.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones

This fact is separate from the fact that the best strategy for progressives to follow now is to vote against the Koch/Wall Street/ Adelson/ Tea Party while having no faith in Obama. Vote against the overtly racist and fascistic party and stay in the streets.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

thank you for the link.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6463) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Are you implying with your headline that Romney would not want Assange?

What makes this unique to "Obama"?

I think I smell a Republican!!

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

would you feel better if i had wrote "united states government wants assange" - and who is the head of that government? but then i imagine if it were 2006 we would be saying bush wants assange. is that incorrect - would you complain if i attributed the iraq war to bush. and please, try to get a better line for all those who oppose your fearless leader - it is possible to oppose both parties. maybe it is not possible for you but others can do it.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

US govt DOES want Assange! So that would be most accurate. Your singling out Pres Obama is not new though so no surprise there!.

Julian Assange is a hero! He is sacrificing his freedom/life for the concept of freedom of the press! We need people like Assange. Right now he is trying to get his case in the news to try to get action on his, & Mannings situation during the US election. Pres Obama very much wants to keep it quiet.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6463) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it's also possible to stick your head in the sand and dry drown..

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

you could try - it may be possible - not sure. are you ok - that was a pretty weak response. would you fell better is i wrote the government wants him?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do you believe the US has secretly produced a warrant for Assanges arrest?

Chomsky said the Brits could invade the Ecuadorian embassy.? Stop!! Never happen! And I doubt Chomsky said it. The West will do nothing before the US election. That is not very intelligent.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

wrong.

"Ecuador called for an emergency OAS meeting after it received a memorandum from the UK that included a threat of an assault on the country’s London embassy to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was seeking political asylum there, if he is not handed over to the British authorities. The contents of the letter were revealed the day before Ecuador publicly announced its decision to grant Assange political asylum." http://rt.com/news/oas-ecuador-uk-theats-asylum-984/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm not concerned. I think the powers that be can put with him being there for 2 more months. He's trying to make noise god bless his soul but the news and the people are too pre occupied.

Don't get me wrong. I support him. He is a hero. Wikileaks is an example of the best use of the internet. I just don't think much will happen before the US election.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well, the brits have threatened to come into the embassy and take him while you were saying "never happen." The Ecuadorians take the threat seriously.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah I heard. 2 months till the US election! I think they will wait. that's all. We don't have to argue over it. We disagree! I've been wrong before! And I will be wrong again. I may turn out to be wrong on this. Ain't no thing!

I hope the brits don't move on the great Assange. I hope he somehow gets out of this predicament! I have little hope that he WILL get free of our legal grip!

He is a hero. He has sacrificed his freedom/life for a basic freedom. We need more like him!

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Pressure needs to be put on Obama about Assange and Bradley Manning.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Without a doubt.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

doesn't matter if they have produced a warrent - if he goes to sweden he will end up in the us

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We run the planet huh?

Right into the ground!

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

thats obamas plan for the usa,...................run it right inot the ground.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Greatest Pres since FDR?

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

fdr was a socialist. he was garbage and so is barry.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2736) 2 years ago

no, FDR "rescued" capitalism from ruins, and gave people hope through putting them to work on projects, giving them a purpose and we were an arsenal for democracy.

then the war happened, and capitalism rescue was complete, with the defeat of hitler and nazis, our country was free to be the biggest nation in the world

capitalism would see the people jump off buildings, when they lost their wealth on wall street.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

you are right - fdr and keynes both felt that they were saving capitalism and now the neocons want to go back the the 1920's

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

all of fdr's alphabet soup programs did nothing to pull the usa economy out of the great depression. WWII did that.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

WWII was the largest government spending program in history. And taxes were increased to pay for it. 90% top marginal rate. With effective rates between 60-70% all the way through most of the 60's. When they were decreased only slightly. Since WWII debt had been brought down to a manageable 30% of GDP. Up until voodoo economics took over the finances.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I know we don't talk any more but I just wanted to say that I'd really like it to be just a strange and portentous cosmic-coincidence that you are making another one of your increasingly insightful comments - just as 'he' is posting posts and comments too ;-)

multum in parvo ...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I was out of replies on your last comment. My little go-round with Emalm. Glad you liked it. I lifted the 'bar tab' bit from TechJunkie. That was funny. Spooky how Tech and I were posting at the same time huh?! Very suspicious don'tcha think! Still going 'round with Emalm btw. Got a reply from him yesterday.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

You read me wrong 'A' ; by 'he' I meant "Trashy" !!! My bad - I should've been clearer and please see recent comments to see what I'm referring to !! I've really liked your comments lately, especially when you referenced 'Marx' on that thread - not to mention your 'Muffy & Daddy Playlet' !

Keep On Keepin' On 'A',

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Don't get your boxers in a bunch over it. It's the Emalms' out there you should worry about. 50 million or so of them that will vote for Ryan/Romney.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. your comment below : What he claims and what he really is are very far apart !!! However, I shall not fall out with you about him again !! Keep doing what you do, you do it well and with elan !

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

LOL !!! + Good point & well made tho' I am actually quite convinced that 'Trashy' is a right-winger who'd vote for Randian Robots like 'Ryan/R-money' in a heartbeat !! But I take on board what you say ! Thanx.

pax ...

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

He would never vote Right. He's a socialist. More or less.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

the govt has NO business wasting taxpyer $ to support fraudulent " green energy" companies. the govt has no business wasting taxpayer $ to take over a failing car company that still owes the US govt about 50 Bil. $ and is on the verge of going bankrupt,..........again. billions of taxpyers $ wasted by obama to help out his friends, the unions, at the expense of the stock holders.

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

money spent because 2 countries declared war on us. one of then, japan, attacked us. up until then, the us military ws not much of anything. money had to be spent to arm the usa military.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Government spending brought us out of the Depression. Your statement. I'm agreeing with you.

'money had to be spent'. Are you saying a government spending program is only ever valid if someone declares war with us? Not for any kind of infrastructure investments? Or funding to help the states hire back hundreds of thousands of police, firemen and teachers? Which would put some people back to work, circulating more money through the economy? Which would create demand. Which would result in more private sector jobs being created. It's only ok to spend more money if there is a war declared? Even though we agree that government spending brought us out of the Depression?

Guess we should just keep spending money on unemployment checks and welfare since this is cheaper than an infrastructure project that would pay soft dividends for the whole country for many many years out. Better we just wait 'til someone declares war again. Then we'll 'have' to spend money.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

61 billion % was raised by the sale of victory bonds during WWII . the people voluntarily gave their money to support the war.they were not forcibly taxed to raise that money. you own "logic" is worthless. i never said that the only reason for a govt to spend money is because said country has been attacked. thats you misguided "logic". all of fdr's spending on his alphabet soup programs did not get this country out of the depression.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Really imbecile? Do you read what you write? How do you think those bonds were paid back? Let me state the obvious for you since you are too dimwitted to figure this out on your own. By increasing the tax rate!

The top marginal tax bracket was raised to 90%. It took 20 years to pay down that debt to a manageable level. When taxes were then lowered. From 90% to 70%.

Try to get this through your thick head.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

I'm gonna say it again. WWII was the largest spending program in history and brought us out of the Great Depression. It was paid for by the largest tax increases in history. Therefore, it was very high tax rates that paid for the spending that brought us out of the Great Depression. Can you follow that Bonehead?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

here is what i wrote to your friend brudlo - i did not have time to read the whole conversation. thought you might be interested - and why would that matter - self defense or arbitrary - when one is trying to figure out how to get the economy out of recession. as was discussed at length after the war ( i assume you meant ww2) it does not matter whether you build schools, hopsitals or houses or tanks and missiles - what matters is that you spend money and create jobs and get the economy going. keynes undestood that which is why he said what he said about money in bottles (you should google it - it is very informative). the real truth here is that we have a situation as dire as war. our infrastructure is crumbling (water, electrical, transportation) - we are bleeding money to oil rich countries to run our economy. we can solve these problems, create the future for our children and grandchildren and put people to work at the same time. what we seem to agree on is that it should not be arbitrary - it needs to be focused really well on the problems at hand. now it seems to me that you are not interested in solving problems but is causing them - you are doing the work of the rich - i think quisling is the proper term. am i wrong?

[-] 1 points by electron (-492) 2 years ago

Don't misspell imbecile. ;-)

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Got it!

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Don't BE an 'imbecile' either - even if you do pronounce it differently in French !!!

lux ?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

the stimulus was a failure. all it did was line the pockets of obamas friends. unemplyoment has been over 8% for the last 40 + months. obama's spending is crippling this country. spending is not " spending. the people of this country bought war bonds, over 61 billion $ worth. they voluntarily backed the country, they were not forced to support the country in a time of war by being taxed. spending money the country doesnt have on things that are not needed to help obama get re-elected is a waste of taxpayer dollars. gm ( which bailed out the unions at the expense of the stock and bond holders ) is on the vege of bankruptcy again. AND they still owe the taxpayers about 50 billion $. obama didnt save the auto industry, he bailed out his friends. solyndra, lightsquared, and other " green" initiatives, went bankrupt, further wasting taxpayer dollars.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Private sector job growth was stronger when the stimulus was in effect. Private sector job growth has since slowed. And state and local governments have been forced to layoff teachers, firefighters, police and other public sector employees. And that's why the unemployment rate is stuck at 8%. Done.

The rest of what you say is some serious stupidity and I think you're mentally inept. Like for instance 'they were not forced to support the country in a time of war by being taxed'. It was government spending in the form of debt! Because the government didn't have tens of millions of dollars of cash sitting around. And that debt was repaid by increasing taxes you moron. The top marginal tax bracket was raised to 90% idiot. Citizens didn't voluntarily send more money to the government to pay down that debt!

Honestly I don't think you have two brain cells to rub together.

And what is the point of bringing up Solyndra and other green initiatives? That private companies fail all the time. We know that. That's part of capitalism. For all the success there is lots of failures. Investors lose money all the time in failed enterprises. It's failures that often lead to success.

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

WWI was NOT a "spendng program" .it was self defense against on nation which attacked a US naval base with the intent of crippling the USA and ather country wihch declared war on the USA ( germany). got that,.........................self defense.it was not some arbitrary "program".

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

and why would that matter - self defense or arbitrary - when one is trying to figure out how to get the economy out of recession. as was discussed at length after the war ( i assume you meant ww2) it does not matter whether you build schools, hopsitals or houses or tanks and missiles - what matters is that you spend money and create jobs and get the economy going. keynes undestood that which is why he said what he said about money in bottles (you should google it - it is very informative). the real truth here is that we have a situation as dire as war. our infrastructure is crumbling (water, electrical, transportation) - we are bleeding money to oil rich countries to run our economy. we can solve these problems, create the future for our children and grandchildren and put people to work at the same time. what we seem to agree on is that it should not be arbitrary - it needs to be focused really well on the problems at hand. now it seems to me that you are not interested in solving problems but is causing them - you are doing the work of the rich - i think quisling is the proper term. am i wrong?

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The economic effect was 'government spending'. Spending is spending. Jobs were created by the government for the war effort. This is no different than jobs being created by the government for infrastructure projects or providing funding for the states to retain teachers and other public service employees.

The government spending flows through the broad based economy. The dollars don't care whether they are producing bullets or bridges. A 'dollar' is an inanimate object. It doesn't care why it came into the economic flow.

You continue making a distinction between government spending for war v government spending for other purposes. It was 'self defense.it was not some arbitrary "program" '. As if spending for war is more valid than other types of government spending. While at the same time you claim you're not.

Of course we had to defend ourselves and determined it was a moral imperative to join the Allies. But what you seem to be suggesting is the war was a 'have to'. But you don't believe that infrastructure stimulus spending, for instance, is a 'have to'. Even though it would provide lasting benefits to the country and the 'spend' would create jobs. We know that government spending had the economic effect of ending the Depression. You would rather the country slog through a long and painful jobless recovery? Because there isn't a 'war' and we don't 'have to' spend money? Is it better to spend money on social welfare programs? Wouldn't it be better for the government to spend less on welfare and more on creating jobs for infrastructure which would provide lasting benefits?

You contradict yourself. You claim you're not contradicting yourself. Which in itself is a contradiction. Or, you just can't communicate your thoughts clearly. So I'm left to interpret what you are trying to say.

This doesn't surprise me coming from a person who can't spell, and thinks the government is going 'bankrupt' because you don't even understand the most basic principle of fiat currency. Really. I'm gonna have to suggest that you try to educate yourself on some basic monetary and economic principles. Please try to do this before trying to make an informed decision in the election

[-] -3 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

norhing was copied and passed , you twit. by the way mass. is state . NOT a country. you really need to get back on your meds.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Very good. You puked up that right wing propaganda without copy and pasting. Aaaaaand..... you've got nothing else. Glad to see you understand there is no comparison between the government supporting green energy and Right Wing Fuckshitup-onomics. Two unnecessary wars not paid for, compounded by reduced government revenues as a result of lowering tax rates. Amounting to trillions upon trillions of increased debt.

[-] -3 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

the unemployment rate is at 8+ % because of obama . gasline prices up, food prices up, comsumer confidence is down. people are afraid to do spend any money on things that arent necessities. companies are not hiring due to uncertainties, obamacare is one of the reasons. huge tax increases coming in january is another. PRIVATE companies DO fail all the time, but solyndra and lightsquared and GM were financed with PUBLIC ( taxpayer ) dollars . obama gambled with the taxpayers money.

[-] 5 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

That's very good brudlo. You can copy and paste Fox News headlines in the form of a rambling rant.

If the President's stimulus plan had been passed last fall the unemployment rate would be 7% or less. The Republican's would not pass that bill even as many of the programs in the bill were Republican ideas, programs supported by Republican's in the past. Just as the Affordable Care Act is a right wing program. Same thing Romney passed in Massachusetts. What? The Fox News right wing propaganda machine doesn't run that headline? That the ACA is a right wing program. Identical to the the healthcare plan in Massachusetts that Romney endorsed and signed as Governor? Did you miss that headline brudlo? Or are you just ignorant?

The unemployment rate in Mass. is 2 points lower than the national average. So I guess the healthcare plan in Mass. isn't exactly the road to ruin is it? And guess what brudlo! When the right wing was promoting the heathcare mandate program, they did so by arguing that it would help create jobs by promoting entrepreneurship. Because people would have the security of an affordable healthcare insurance option if they wanted to start a new business or try to launch or create a new product. They are more likely to take initiative and risk, start a new business, if they know that they have access to affordable healthcare coverage. And that's the only good thing Romney did in his two year stunt as Governor. So spare me your 'obamacare is one of the reasons' bullshit. It's absurd.

Corporations have record amounts of cash on hand and record profits. They aren't hiring because there is lack of demand. Supply exists to meet demand. They won't hire people unless demand increases and necessitates it. No demand equals no jobs. Uncertainties and taxes is complete right wing hack bullshit. If there were more demand companies would damn well hire people. A company will hire when there is demand to warrant it. It's an economic certainty. Period.

Of course corporations would like lower tax rates. They exist to maximize profits. And lower tax rates are the quickest and easiest way to get more money to the bottom line. Especially when they have morons like you supporting economic policy that will help them do that. Really brudlo. How unbelievably stupid can you be.

'obama gambled with the taxpayers money'. Are you freaking joking me! Bush started two unnecessary wars! With no way to pay for it! He lowered taxes and went to war! Nobody does that! It's called Right Wing Fuckshitup-onomics. wtf was that?! A sure fucking thing?! That Iraq had WMD?! Spending trillions of dollars for what? Thousands and thousands of dead and wounded. Not to mention the trillions of dollars in reduced revenue to the government based on those tax cuts. That's called fucking shit up. That's why the debt is what it is. We'll be paying for Right Wing Fuckshitup-onomics for decades.

You brudlo are breathtakingly stupid. And yet oddly amusing at the same time. Because you think you know what you're talking about. When you've let the Fox News right wing propaganda machine eat your brain. Too bad you don't have enough brain matter left to realize this.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

handing money over to private corporation is a gamble

government money should go to government jobs

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

govt spending did not bring the usa out of the great depression years 1923-1929 unemployement averaged 3.3 % 1930 - 8.8%, 1931- 15.9%, 1932 -23.6%,, 1933 24.9%, 1934-21.7%, 1935-20.1%, 1936- 17.0%,1937-14.3%, 1928-19.0%, 1939-17.2% , 1940-14.6%. what brought the uSAut of the depression was WWII. The current administration is spending if doesnt have, 40% of every dollar spent is borrowed. the way obama is pending, a few more years and this country will be bankrupt.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Try to get this through your painfully thick head. WWII was the largest government spending program in history and brought us out of the Great Depression.

Every administration through history has spent money it does not have.

And on an average annualized basis, government spending increases under Pres. Obama is far far less than Bush Jr. and Reagan. A 1.4% increase v 7.7 and 6.8.

And it's impossible for the country to go bankrupt. It's called fiat currency.

You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

[-] 0 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

it wasnt a " spending program" . WWII was not implemented by the USA to end the depression. in case you forgot,or just dont know, the USA was attacked. YOU are the clueless one.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I didn't say that WWII was created for the purpose of ending the Depression. You bonehead.

I said: WWII was the largest government spending program in history 'AND' brought us out of the Great Depression.

Not 'for the purpose of'. As a consequence of government spending for the war effort, the Depression was ended. It was not the purpose.

Do you understand the difference in meaning between 'purpose' and 'consequence'.

Purpose - the reason for which something exists or is done.

Consequence - something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions.

The economic consequence of WWII is that it ended the Depression. I did not say that the purpose of WWII was to end the Depression.

Now. Try to follow along here. You said yourself that WWII ended the Depression. WWII was the largest government spending program in history. Therefore, government spending brought us out of the Great Depression.

But according to your logic, government spending is only valid if we are 'attacked'. Do I have that right? Just trying to clarify.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Socialist is good right?. caring for others. Sharing, loving, How could you be against socialism?

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

socialism in not good. its centralized govt which only works for the people at the top,.i.e. the rulers. statism doesnt work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think you got it wrong. I mean our system only benefits the rulers at the top but we are capitalist

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

This is corporatism, not capitalism. Go try to sell some lemonaide on the street corner, see how far you get.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thanks!

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Isn't China's top down management of the economy running circles around us? But unlike the US, people in China are actually being pulled out of poverty.

I'm just sayin'.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Such bodaciously bold bullshit.

You should spend less time at stormfront.

[-] 0 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

obama IS garbage, fdr was garbage.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Hmmm, which would make you what?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

someone who tells the truth regarding the current president.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Just not very much truth, eh and not accurately put?

Let me ask you how you feel about forcing teachers to teach creationism?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

this president and his entire adminstration are garbage. why are you trying to change the subject?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I have to doubt your observation, because you have dissed one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had.

Yet ignore those who would destroy education, and education just might be a problem for you.

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

how do you feel about the great fdr rounding up american citzens by the thousands and putting them in interment camps? the miltary , under fdr ( presidency 1933- 1945 )WAS segregated, he did nothing to change it.fdr did know about the concentration camps and the mass murders of the jews, gypsies, gays and was not interested in stopping it. those are not "inferences" those are FACTS. do you own research and prove my wrong. you can do the research , but you cant prove me wrong because what i said about fdr is truth, fact.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Things have changed since then.

How do YOU feel about states forcing teachers to teach creationism?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

i mentioned 2 presidents, you didnt specify which one. it really doesnt matter , though, he( fdr) tried to pack the supreme court with more judges. ( there are 9, he tried to add 6 more) to get his way. he had no regard for what hitler was doing to the jews.he knew what was going on. churchill wanted the railheads that led to the concentration camps bombed, fdr wasnt interested. he rounded up and interred thousands of americans of japanese and german decent. under fdr , the armed forces remained segregated.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're lucky my grandparents are long gone.

They'd have tossed you in the nearest river for lying like that and making those inferences, and no one would have complained about it.

It's amazes me the amount of crap the "right" wing tries to pass off as the truth.

Even more amazing is that anyone falls for it.

Hook line and sinker. Sounds like the kind of crap I've seen on white power sites.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

there is no logical connection. you cant redeem fdr for his anti american activities.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you fail to understand that we no longer live in the 1930s, but it's true, we don't.

You fail to mention the great body of good works he did do.

The last time I heard this kind of thing, it was from some methhead white power freaks, a long time ago.

Perhaps a change social contacts would do you some good.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

if you think that obama is one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had,......................... you're an obama plant or too stupid to read history or both.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're such a knee jerk, jerk.

I was referring to FDR.

So don't wrap it, bag it.

You must be pure vegetable matter.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

rounding up thousands on american citizens of all ages and putting them in internment camps , you call that protection? it was bigotry on fdr's part, NOT protection.

[-] -2 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

That only happens in nonsensical countries like US. Every one else in the world knows creationism is pure crap.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OOoooops!

You messed up on your user names........:)

You see, here's the thing, I for one HATE politicians that push this nonsense.

Care to guess who they might be, and what neolibe(R)tarians aid them at every bad turn?

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

you said that fdr was great but fail to address his anti american policies. you casually dismiss his rounding up of thousands of american citizens of all ages and putting them in internment camps.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In a very real way, he protected them from our plethora of bigots too.

It's a point that seems lost on you.

[-] -2 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

Republicans are such idiots that they don't scare me too much. I can see right through their nonsense. The problem in US is that you guys are all about "In God We Thrust". Yes, with an H. You talk about God like he was real, then you spike him from the back with your hamburger infused sex rods, not listening to one thing you learned in church. You guys talked about separating church and state first. When the hell are you going to do that?

As an OWS activist, I hate all politicians. They are all corrupt. The system is broke. Of course, as a member of this site but not an OWS activist, you're a supporter of Obama. GOBAMA!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I can see you are going to have a problem identifying and answering questions.

Aimless rants are nice and all, but not very clarifying.

[-] -3 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

Anyone who will not fight against creationism in schools is a poser anyway.

Anyone who would dismiss it, as you have, is endorsing it.

Please, that fight was won long ago in Superior Court against Intelligent Design. This is old news garbage. We have serious problems to face. Your problem is not creationism is school, it's accepting that religion and politics are mixed up. You should make Christianity and all other forms of religion illegal.

Again, I ask, have you ever partaken in grassroots activism for OWS, or do you spend all your time troll hunting on this site?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's not old news because it's still happening.

Why do you claim it isn't?

I already answered you final question. I won't do it again for a sock puppet.

So stuff it, stop putting on airs and answer some of mine.

You should also try and keep you puppets in order, you answered under the wrong one.

[-] -3 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

I can see you are going to have a problem identifying and answering questions.

Aimless rants are nice and all, but not very clarifying.

I don't care to guess who those politicians might be because I think it's an utter waste of time. We should be talking about OWS activism. Not about the dead horse of creationism in school.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You came here to insult people.

Just admit it and move on.

You have little to offer and have offered nothing anyway.

Anyone who will not fight against creationism in schools is a poser anyway.

Anyone who would dismiss it, as you have, is endorsing it.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Assange? Can't touch that.