>> ^cosmovitelli:
The bottom line is rogue elements inside the US Government are commanding private companies to interfere with the expression of constitutionally protected rights in order to destroy an organization that is proving politically awkward for them. What you think of Assange or WL is not the issue: unilateral extrajudicial besieging of lawful political groups is, well, roughly Germany at the start of the 30's.


I completely agree with your assessment here, but the condemning is being directed at VISA,MC,etc and not these neolibs and neocons inside the government. While I no doubt hold VISA,MC,etc in contempt, giving the government a pass is ridiculous.

And if you do your homework, wikileaks and Assange stink of a CIA psyop. Further reason to question the motives of these recent announcements and actions.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.



So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.

The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.

Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.

Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.

And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

>> ^Crosswords:

I'd like to respond to two of the more douchey arguments made by Mr. Schiff.
1. AMERICAN WORKERS ARE DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND LOWER PRICES THAN CORPORATIONS CAN PROFIT FROM.
This would be more believable if a. Corporate profits weren't at record highs, b. the disparity between worker and executive pay is huge and has been more or less steadily increasing and c. the disparity between the top 20% and everyone else has also been increasing. So essentially the rich are demanding more for less and they're getting it.
2. I WORKED HARD TO EARN EVERYTHING I GOT, SO I DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL AND DO WHATEVER I WANT.
This is a ridiculous argument designed to make the person who has the most look like a victim. It ignores the tremendous advantages he enjoys in a society that strives to give workers a relatively comfortable wage and keep opportunities for economic advancement open. Had he been born in one of his oh so precious 'competitive' wage countries in all likelihood he'd be living in poverty sewing shoes for a $1 a day till the day he died of poor health at the age of 45. Further more it also ignores his socioeconomic upbringing and make the assumption he's a self-made man who picked himself up from his own boot-straps out of the mud of poverty. In Mr. Schiff's case his father was a well connected political activist, investor, and current tax dodging jail bird. Its probably safe to say Peter Schiff didn't start with nothing, but in fact had a lot more avenues to success open to him than the majority of Americans do. There's also the element of chance, its nice to think that everything you succeed at is purely a result of your own tenacity and personal genius, but I'd argue there is also a good deal of chance involved; being in the right place at the right time and making the right decision. No, I'm not suggesting people have no control over what they do in life, I'm arguing the assertion that they have complete control is false.
I don't think the protester did an awful job, and the fact he gave someone who's job it is to argue on on TV about economic matters a run for his money is a statement to the weakness of Mr. Schiff's position.


Well, I listened to the clip again and somehow I couldn't find these Schiff arguments. The only ones making "douchey arguments" are those framing partisan strawman instead of recognizing there's truth to both sides.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.


You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.

It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?

Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.

*dead

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.


allowed to exist? *facepalm*

You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.

You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.

"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"

I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.

The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.

>> ^Eukelek:

>> ^marbles:
The CIA has run out of money? LOLz
Hey Assange, we're still waiting for the "leak" on BoA. It's been almost a year now.
Or is this what all this theater is about? Are you setting the stage so when BoA or some other bank implodes from the trillions of worthless derivatives, they can point the finger at wikileaks and blame it on internet "terrorists" anonymous?

In a conference a couple days ago, Assange said how that information was lost since the person who had custody of it ended up selling it or losing it after having his loyalty to wikileaks compromised. That that person does not work for wikileaks anymore and never will and apparently that he was sorry but that leak might never be produced. If i find the link, I will post it here...


Lol, he should've just said his dog ate it. That would've been more believable.

TYT isn't asking the right questions.

Why isn't there a financial blockade on New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel?

Who are wikileaks' funders, past and present?

How much does it cost to run a website that stopped accepting submissions years ago, and only hosts text and a few video files that are actually published by surrogates?

Why not use other funding methods? There's plenty of other payment processors and p2p solutions. Funny there's been a financial blockade in the US on online gambling for 5+ years, but you can find a way to send and receive funds if you really want to.

The CIA has run out of money? LOLz

Hey Assange, we're still waiting for the "leak" on BoA. It's been almost a year now.

Or is this what all this theater is about? Are you setting the stage so when BoA or some other bank implodes from the trillions of worthless derivatives, they can point the finger at wikileaks and blame it on internet "terrorists" anonymous?

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.

For anyone that wants to educate themselves on NATO's war crimes and the rebel terrorist groups we support, read this guy's blog:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/libya-confirmation-could-take-days.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/libya-v-day-3-weeks.html

TSA: We have to train and condition Americans to feel guilty until proven innocent.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.


They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.

The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.