If progressives ran the world

Originally posted by centurion1211
And related to my NY Times Thread, here is one from the Washington Post - another usually staunch obama supporter.

What is going on here as MSM outlet after MSM outlet that once could find no wrong with anything obama said or did, now coming down very hard on obama for a variety of reasons.

This is an opinion spot on the Washington Post. This is different from an article on the site's main section. So I don't understand how this equates to a media outlet (that you say usually supports Obama) not supporting Obama.

Ellison and the progressives probably would have a better chance of influencing the weather than they would passing their budget, which they are floating as an alternative to the House Republican bid and President Obama’s plan.

Among the highlights: A $4 trillion tax increase over 10 years. An increase in the top tax rate to 49 percent. A $2.3 trillion cut in defense spending – and an increase in domestic spending. Oh, and they would revive the “public option” to offer government-run health care.

The first paragraph says what any intelligent person following U.S. politics could figure out. With one side of the aisle comfortable with obstructing any legislation proposed by the President. That's the reality.

And what's wrong with the listed highlights? They look fine to me.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by simone50m

 

It's not left vs. right so much as it's pro big government vs pro small government.

The real divisivness is who do you want to take care of you?
Yourself?
Or
Big government?

Choose one over the other and all debate becomes moot.

That is your spin

I am against dropping the barriers which hold total corporatism at bay

You distill the argument into the one that serves the least amount of thought and understanding.

I choose a BIG MIDDLE CLASS

In other words, you mean the "proletariat", right?

second line ...

reply to post by Throwback


Not really so different than the "main section" since the Washington Post editors also control what is printed in the editorial section and no doubt have used their power to skew what has been printed in the past to be as pro-obama as the "main section".

The good thing is that apparently they've now come to their senses.

reply to post by Janky Red


At who's expense? You're either for big government entitlements or you're against them.
Which one is it?

No waffling. No perceverating. No talking points.

You really need to answer the question.

5 words or less.

Can you do it?

reply to post by centurion1211Please post the facts on this charge that the Koch brothers are "attempting to buy all the water rights in the U.S." from a reputable source ...

or better yet, just stop posting the lies ...

I won't speak for the poster, but i'll offer this......I suggest you check out a documentary called Blue Gold: World Water Wars.

The uncontrovertable premise of the film is that the planet is currently unable to adequately replinish fresh water supplies and thus our supply of drinkable water is steadily dwindling. The synopsis:

In every corner of the globe, we are polluting, diverting, pumping, and wasting our limited supply of fresh water at an exponential level as population and technology grows, resulting in the desertification of the earth.

Corporate giants profit by forcing developing countries to privatize their shrinking water supply. Wall Street investors target desalination and mass bulk water export schemes to turn a global catastrophe into a product. Corrupt governments use water for economic and political gain, military control of water emerges, and a new geopolitical map and power structure forms, setting the stage for world water wars.

It is theoretically reversible, but only if we fundamentally change our scorch-the-earth consumption patterns, which of course the corporate financier oligarchy doesn't want any part of. When the time comes, they'd rather just own the water supply, charge us for it, and control us.

Legally it's a bit more complicated than this in the USA, but, in general, water is no different than oil; if you own the land on which the water table sits, you own the water. And just like oil, as the supply decreases, TPTB will go to greater and greater lengths to own and control the resource and the people who depend on it, up to and including war.

Anyways, the poster you replied to used the word "intend", not "attempting". I'm not aware of any direct evidence that the Koch brothers are attempting to do this as we speak, but based on their track record I have no doubt that they have every intention being involved in it. The most interesting part of the documentary in this respect was its discussion of Brazil, which currently sits on the largest remaining fresh water table in the world. Guess who recently negotiated with a neighboring government and bought hundreds of acres of land that sits adjacent to the Brazilian border and this water table?

The Bush's.

Sounds eerily familar to Saudi Arabia, no? And if power mongers like the Bush's have already begun preparing to own the last gallons of the world's water supply, it doesn't take much to convince me that the Koch brothers and every other scumbag billionaire bent on world profit domination is far behind.

reply to post by centurion1211


The main paper is scrutinized, checked for facts, etc. An opinion page isn't. An analogy that might be helpful is an opinion page to a news site is the same as a pundit to a news channel. Also you didn't answer the second question.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by simone50m

 

It's not left vs. right so much as it's pro big government vs pro small government.

The real divisivness is who do you want to take care of you?
Yourself?
Or
Big government?

Choose one over the other and all debate becomes moot.

That is your spin

I am against dropping the barriers which hold total corporatism at bay

You distill the argument into the one that serves the least amount of thought and understanding.

I choose a BIG MIDDLE CLASS

In other words, you mean the "proletariat", right?

second line ...

No I mean the Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor, usually buy a SFR and are not strictly business owners.

You support the modern equivalent of Monarchists, Oligarchs and slave masters, I think that is a foolish
approach in a nation that is not comprised with a large quantity of ELITES. This nation was founded to
escape self serving elite schemes, the kind you wish to reinstate.

Do your friends here know that you are a NEOCONSERVATIVE anyways? Three dollar bill

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by simone50m

 

It's not left vs. right so much as it's pro big government vs pro small government.

The real divisivness is who do you want to take care of you?
Yourself?
Or
Big government?

Choose one over the other and all debate becomes moot.

That is your spin

I am against dropping the barriers which hold total corporatism at bay

You distill the argument into the one that serves the least amount of thought and understanding.

I choose a BIG MIDDLE CLASS

In other words, you mean the "proletariat", right?

second line ...

No I mean the Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor, usually buy a SFR and are not strictly business owners.

You support the modern equivalent of Monarchists, Oligarchs and slave masters, I think that is a foolish
approach in a nation that is not comprised with a large quantity of ELITES. This nation was founded to
escape self serving elite schemes, the kind you wish to reinstate.

Do your friends here know that you are a NEOCONSERVATIVE anyways? Three dollar bill

How about an understanding (by you) of just who employs the "Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor"?

Answer: it is people who are often "strictly business owners".

Of course, marxist-leninist communists think it should be the state instead that employs the middle class - and everyone else.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Janky Red

 

At who's expense? You're either for big government entitlements or you're against them.
Which one is it?

No waffling. No perceverating. No talking points.

You really need to answer the question.

5 words or less.

Can you do it?

Nope, I like substance, I am not for or against anything across the board.

Just because you are a product of corporate medias assault on individuality does not mean I am too.

You must be proud that the entirity of your substance can be summed up in five words

But since you obviously adhere to what you preach

you do it

You're either for corporate world domination or you are for the governance and laws that ensure and protect individuality through balanced consideration of civilian and private concerns...


No waffling. No perceverating. No talking points.

You really need to answer the question.

5 words or less.

Don't be a grand Hypocrite

You're own standard, let us see


Can you do it?

Originally posted by centurion1211
How about an understanding (by you) of just who employs the "Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor"?

Answer:

it is people who are often "strictly business owners".

Of course, marxist-leninist communists think it should be the state instead that employs the middle class - and everyone else.

I understand there needs to be a balance as it is the capital outlay of the middle class which buys the products and services created by business. You choose to look at it from the angle you do, I look at it from the angle that is around me, regular folks, unlike you, I do not associate with Millionaires and Billionaires, so I guess I cannot relate.

I know Elitist Fascist neocons think that industry is the extent of humanity and America, but I know other wise.

These proposed tax cuts should go to the bottom three tax brackets for a change, those people will in turn
pay off their consumer debt and create liquidity in the market which will spur growth

Originally posted by Janky Red
You're either for corporate world domination or you are for the governance and laws that ensure and protect individuality through balanced consideration of civilian and private concerns...

This statement of yours perfectly shows your true agenda.

To someone that believes in democracy and a free market economy, "civilian and private concerns" are one and the same.

They would only appear to be different things to someone who believes in soviet or chinese-style totalitarianism.

Exposed ...

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by centurion1211
How about an understanding (by you) of just who employs the "Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor"?

Answer:

it is people who are often "strictly business owners".

Of course, marxist-leninist communists think it should be the state instead that employs the middle class - and everyone else.

I understand there needs to be a balance as it is the capital outlay of the middle class which buys the products and services created by business. You choose to look at it from the angle you do, I look at it from the angle that is around me, regular folks, unlike you, I do not associate with Millionaires and Billionaires, so I guess I cannot relate.

I know Elitist Fascist neocons think that industry is the extent of humanity and America, but I know other wise.

These proposed tax cuts should go to the bottom three tax brackets for a change, those people will in turn
pay off their consumer debt and create liquidity in the market.

You are now resorting to name calling and insults.

Proof you have been "defeated" in the debate and have nothing left.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red
You're either for corporate world domination or you are for the governance and laws that ensure and protect individuality through balanced consideration of civilian and private concerns...

This statement of yours perfectly shows your true agenda.

To someone that believes in democracy and a free market economy, "civilian and private concerns" are one and the same.

They would only appear to be different things to someone who believes in soviet or chinese-style totalitarianism.

Exposed ...

What are tarding on about???

(and yes the extent of your idiocy was exposed, thanks)

I know you support Totalitarianism, but I would have never guessed which brands you prefer

Any government is established to govern people, human beings.

Those people in turn create economies, which supports their existence

I am for a system that does not crush people's existence to service the Elites...

I am for balance

Pretty soon your extreme ideas are going to need boots and uniforms

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by centurion1211
How about an understanding (by you) of just who employs the "Middle Class, the people who provide skilled labor"?

Answer:

it is people who are often "strictly business owners".

Of course, marxist-leninist communists think it should be the state instead that employs the middle class - and everyone else.

I understand there needs to be a balance as it is the capital outlay of the middle class which buys the products and services created by business. You choose to look at it from the angle you do, I look at it from the angle that is around me, regular folks, unlike you, I do not associate with Millionaires and Billionaires, so I guess I cannot relate.

I know Elitist Fascist neocons think that industry is the extent of humanity and America, but I know other wise.

These proposed tax cuts should go to the bottom three tax brackets for a change, those people will in turn
pay off their consumer debt and create liquidity in the market.

You are now resorting to name calling and insults.

Proof you have been "defeated" in the debate and have nothing left.

AWWW did I hurt your feelings you bundle of innocence?

marxist-leninist communists

your are such a victim

did you identify with this?

Elitist Fascist neocons

Originally posted by Janky Red

Pretty soon your extreme ideas are going to need boots and uniforms

You mean like the Red Army or KGB?

No thanks.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red

Pretty soon your extreme ideas are going to need boots and uniforms

You mean like the Red Army or KGB?

No thanks.

Well the GOP could adopt the uniform of your avatar, but I would update the swords and body armor

Tell me, would you support tax cuts that were aimed at the bottom three brackets as opposed to the top?

Tell me why or why not?

Originally posted by Janky Red
Tell me, would you support tax cuts that were aimed at the bottom three brackets as opposed to the top?

Tell me why or why not?

Hey, thanks for knocking off the insults. And because of that, I'll take the time to answer you.

Of course I support tax cuts, and for all brackets.

Because I think the problem is wasteful spending, not that we don't tax people enough.

Originally posted by centurion1211
What is going on here as MSM outlet after MSM outlet that once could find no wrong with anything obama said or did, now coming down very hard on obama for a variety of reasons.

I remain confused over this line of rhetoric concerning the "Mainstream Media".

As the far right, yourself included, often reminds us, Fox News has more viewers than any other news outlet, highest ratings etc.

From where I am sitting, Fox News IS the "Mainstream Media".

....

That said, this plan that was proposed in contrast to the Presidents...Notice it was put forward without claiming that our President is a terrorist, socialist or born in Kenya? It's called democracy and it's a good thing. Perhaps the GOP can take note on how to have a public debate without frothing at the mouth.