*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, October 20th, 2011 7:09pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Tymbrwulf.

Wow. He called it, didn't he?

He was right on the money, a regular NostroFuckinDamus. Nobody listned in 1999 because we all knew the banks computers would all go blank from Y2K syndrome.

Nonetheless, Congress repealed the law and the nation suffered the tragic consequences of the 2008 financial crisis about a decade later.

It may be implied that the repeal of Glass-Steven Seagal led to the 2008 crisis but evidence is scant.

"The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999. Clinton's support of the repeal is revealed in the following statement by a Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary"

“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”

And in his own statement upon CLINTON signing the act into law:

"“Over the past seven years we have tried to modernize the economy. And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

@quantumushroom

Stop pretending there's a difference between republicans and democrats.

Occupy Wall Street has proven this.

Bush Obama are the same administration just different colors.

Stop fantasizing that Republicans controlled by Corporate Lobbyists are favorable to Democrats controlled by the same Corporate Lobbyists.

You cannot argue with his prediction. It was correct to the smallest detail. This gives me hope that there are still some politicians that try to do well; too bad they are and a few in between.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/08/03

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@quantumushroom
Stop pretending there's a difference between republicans and democrats.
Occupy Wall Street has proven this.
Bush Obama are the same administration just different colors.
Stop fantasying that Republicans controlled by Corporate Lobbyist are favorable to Democrats controlled by the same Corporate Lobbyists.


Agreed, qm needs to wake out of his slumber, the world has moved on but his view of the world and politics hasn't. We're all getting the shaft from the same people going under different banners, and the genius of it is that for all this time they've had us fighting amongst ourselves.

The world hasn't "moved on" and never will, due the constant known as "human nature".

The reason there appears to be "no difference" between the two parties is because people want it that way. Imagine having to hand over your guns every time a taxocrat assumes office, then get them back when the other team is elected, or taxes being stuck on a permanent roller coaster, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead. It's best that radical changes don't arrive on a weekly basis.

If anyone really believes there's "no difference" then please vote against taxocrats, they'll make you poorer, faster.




>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@quantumushroom
Stop pretending there's a difference between republicans and democrats.
Occupy Wall Street has proven this.
Bush Obama are the same administration just different colors.
Stop fantasying that Republicans controlled by Corporate Lobbyist are favorable to Democrats controlled by the same Corporate Lobbyists.

Agreed, qm needs to wake out of his slumber, the world has moved on but his view of the world and politics hasn't. We're all getting the shaft from the same people going under different banners, and the genius of it is that for all this time they've had us fighting amongst ourselves.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Stop pretending there's a difference between republicans and democrats.
Occupy Wall Street has proven this.
Bush Obama are the same administration just different colors.
Stop fantasying that Republicans controlled by Corporate Lobbyist are favorable to Democrats controlled by the same Corporate Lobbyists.


Stop pretending there's not a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Compare Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party if you need proof.

Bush and Obama are very, very different. You've apparently forgotten what the Bush years were like.

Stop fantasying [sic] that Democrats are trying to lose every legislative battle on purpose. Corporate lobbyists have more influence over Democrats than I'd like, but the Republicans worship the lobbyists like Gods.

Why are people making this out to be Republican vs. Democrat?

AFAIK both sides voted to repeal Glass-Steagall.

The problem isn't Republicans or Democrats, it's the lobbyists that find legal ways to bribe politicians to get what they want.

I'm not proposing a solution because I don't have one, but the problem seems to be with the system itself IMO. Feel free to correct my way of thinking.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Stop pretending there's a difference between republicans and democrats.
Occupy Wall Street has proven this.
Bush Obama are the same administration just different colors.
Stop fantasying that Republicans controlled by Corporate Lobbyist are favorable to Democrats controlled by the same Corporate Lobbyists.

Stop pretending there's not a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Compare Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party if you need proof.
Bush and Obama are very, very different. You've apparently forgotten what the Bush years were like.
Stop fantasying [sic] that Democrats are trying to lose every legislative battle on purpose. Corporate lobbyists have more influence over Democrats than I'd like, but the Republicans worship the lobbyists like Gods.


I can think of one specific difference between Obama and Bush. Bush would capture and torture people, Obama just flat out has them assassinated.

I'm sure I can find other horrible things Democrats have done...how about the 500,000 Iraqi children who died because of Clinton?

@Yogi, so you're jumping on the same moronic bandwagon, and spreading lies to boot?

Awesome.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Yogi, so you're jumping on the same moronic bandwagon, and spreading lies to boot?
Awesome.


Nothing I said was a lie, it's history. Obama has been ordering targeted assassinations with drones. Clinton was responsible for the sanctions against Iraq which saw 500,000 Iraqi children die. This figure and the reasons for it were accepted by his secretary of state Madeleine Albright.

You wanna dispute either of those facts I'll refer you to Professor Chomsky and you can tell him how wrong he is.

I kinda have to agree with QM (in a twisted way) on this one. If you truly believe there's "no difference", then vote for a Rethuglican in the upcoming election.

Out of the provided options, I'll take the less worse option, thanks. Apart from what is wrong with the whole two-party system, I can't in good conscience equivocate them.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^NetRunner:
@Yogi, so you're jumping on the same moronic bandwagon, and spreading lies to boot?
Awesome.

Nothing I said was a lie, it's history. Obama has been ordering targeted assassinations with drones. Clinton was responsible for the sanctions against Iraq which saw 500,000 Iraqi children die. This figure and the reasons for it were accepted by his secretary of state Madeleine Albright.
You wanna dispute either of those facts I'll refer you to Professor Chomsky and you can tell him how wrong he is.


What you're saying doesn't establish a similarity, it establishes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your preconceptions.

For example, economic sanctions = war to you now? They're "Clinton's" economic sanctions, and not something the UN imposed before Clinton was President? That's before we even delve into your claim that the economic sanctions killed more children than 10 years of war killed.

That aside, what you need to prove for equivalence is that there's no difference. Not that you can argue that maybe on some subject that they have similar views (and it's hard to even do that, without relying on hasty generalizations), but that on every subject they agree, with no counterexamples.

So here are three counterexamples:

Democrats want universal healthcare, Republicans don't.
Republicans want to privatize Social Security, Democrats don't.
Democrats want to regulate banks, Republicans don't.

If you can't deal with those, and every single one anyone can come up with then the equivalency argument is shot, and you need to adopt the more sane pose of "Democrats suck, but Republicans suck a lot more" or vice versa if you like the cut of the Republican Party's jib.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^NetRunner:
@Yogi, so you're jumping on the same moronic bandwagon, and spreading lies to boot?
Awesome.

Nothing I said was a lie, it's history. Obama has been ordering targeted assassinations with drones. Clinton was responsible for the sanctions against Iraq which saw 500,000 Iraqi children die. This figure and the reasons for it were accepted by his secretary of state Madeleine Albright.
You wanna dispute either of those facts I'll refer you to Professor Chomsky and you can tell him how wrong he is.

What you're saying doesn't establish a similarity, it establishes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your preconceptions.
For example, economic sanctions = war to you now? They're "Clinton's" economic sanctions, and not something the UN imposed before Clinton was President? That's before we even delve into your claim that the economic sanctions killed more children than 10 years of war killed.
That aside, what you need to prove for equivalence is that there's no difference. Not that you can argue that maybe on some subject that they have similar views (and it's hard to even do that, without relying on hasty generalizations), but that on every subject they agree, with no counterexamples.
So here are three counterexamples:
Democrats want universal healthcare, Republicans don't.
Republicans want to privatize Social Security, Democrats don't.
Democrats want to regulate banks, Republicans don't.
If you can't deal with those, and every single one anyone can come up with then the equivalency argument is shot, and you need to adopt the more sane pose of "Democrats suck, but Republicans suck a lot more" or vice versa if you like the cut of the Republican Party's jib.


If you want to maybe read a fucking book once in awhile I suggest A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions in Iraq by Hans von Sponeck.

@Yogi way to not respond to the point being made.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Yogi way to not respond to the point being made.


I don't care enough to argue with someone who wouldn't even understand what I'm arguing about until he actually has some information.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^NetRunner:
@Yogi way to not respond to the point being made.

I don't care enough to argue with someone who wouldn't even understand what I'm arguing about until he actually has some information.


I couldn't agree more!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^NetRunner:
@Yogi way to not respond to the point being made.

I don't care enough to argue with someone who wouldn't even understand what I'm arguing about until he actually has some information.

I couldn't agree more!


Now I understand why you butt heads with almost everyone on this site. You're a fucking cunt. Obama is killing people with Drones is he not? Clinton instituted Sanctions on Iraq and those sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children and that comes from Noam Fucking Chomsky and Hans vonFucking Sponeck UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq!

Who the fuck are you? OH NOBODY Who doesn't know Fucking ANYTHING. Who wasn't on the ground, who didn't do the research who didn't write a fucking book about the subject and who isn't considered a World Fucking Expert ON ANYTHING.

Just a Lazy, Stupid Cunt who can't fucking admit that Clinton was a Fucking horrible mother fucker and Obama ain't much better.

Here's one...Clinton SUPPORTED the Genocide of East Timor that by the end of it had killed over 600,000 people. Nice huh...how about that fucking shit. You wanna know who Doubled the Arms and funding to Indonesia so they could continue killing the people of East Timor? Fucking Noble Peace Prize winner Fucking Jimmy Fucking Carter.

Don't FUCK with me man I know more about this shit THAN ANYONE You've EVER FUCKING KNOWN.

FUCK OFF!!!

@Yogi and you're someone who's so caught up in their own self-righteous superiority they don't even listen to what people they're talking to are actually saying.

I bump heads with people here because I find it to be a great way to expand my horizons, and get my views challenged. I really appreciate it when people can show me a flaw in my thinking.

You're not doing that. You're taking an anti-equivalency argument from me, and pretending it's an assertion that Democrats can do no wrong. You're not understanding me if that's what you think I'm saying.

You're taking my statement that there are substantive differences between the parties, which is largely based on economic policy differences, and insisting I answer your every criticism about Democratic foreign policy. You seem to think the burden of proof is on me, and not you.

And I'm obviously making you angry by refusing to just accept your assertion that Clinton = W. Bush because he didn't fight to undo the economic sanctions put in place during H.W Bush's presidency, and that W. Bush's decision to engage us in direct warfare in Iraq is also equivalent to Clinton's economic sanctions. Hell, you're even calling me names over it, rather than just making a case for why I shouldn't be skeptical about such claims of moral equivalency.

I don't really have any personal beef with you. I have a beef with people going around and trying to equate Democrats and Republicans, because it's trivially, obviously not true. It's a really, really self-destructive little meme, too. If someone were to convince me that was actually true, and that we have absolutely zero say in things, I'd be willing to get behind some rather radical solutions to the problem, including armed revolution!

I admit, I was the first one between us to be disrespectful, but that's just because I've spent the last week having this exact same argument with several other people here, and I'm sorta fed up with it. I apologize for that, but seriously, you've gotta admit that you can't prove the two parties are indistinguishable, at least not without engaging in a lot of intellectual dishonesty!

You gotta admit that was an EPIC FUCKING RANT!

@NetRunner

How bout you just admit that "democrat" and "republican" are both bullshit titles that don't convey any real meaning.

Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S. Citizen WITHOUT A TRIAL OR CHARGES, even.

Doesn't that strike at the very core of all your democratic rule of law, Dems are marginally, if not unequivocally, better than Repubs malarkey?

You've already lost this disagreement.
When Obama failed to close Gitmo and expanded rendition, you lost.
When Obama continued and expanded warrant-less wiretapping, you lost.
When Obama extended the Trillion Bush Tax Cuts for the 1%, you lost.

The individuals who assume the title "Democrat" might have more liberal leaning mindsets, might have flexible acceptance of different groups, might have a more progressive focus for the future of their communities.

That doesn't change the fact that the system in which they work.. is rigged.
The outcome is predetermined.

Chris Hedges said it best. "There's no way to vote against the banks."

Bankers, speculators and usurers rule the modern world.

Their fiat currency, derivative trading, two-party election rigging world will be the only with any relevance as long as pig-monkeys like @NetRunner and @quantumushroom buy into their wholesale bullshit and let it be.

Cut free. Establish your own voluntary hive-mind. Occupy the Universe.
[there's enough space for all of us. trust me]

@GenjiKilpatrick, so more or less the same thing I said to Yogi applies to you. You're focusing in on things you're mad at Democrats for (again, mostly in foreign policy), and then pretending that this means the two parties are equivalent. They ain't.

Now I do agree with you that there's a pretty fucking rigged system in place, and I'd love to fix it.

So...how do we fix it? @Yogi, you have some idea? I'm all ears.

All I'm saying is that even in the current system, there are still reasons to participate in elections and to generally support Democrats.

You're blaming Democrats largely for not having cleaned up the worst messes created by Republicans (targeted killing programs, gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, and the Bush Tax cuts, just to name a few). I'm annoyed about that too, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences to letting Republicans have the reigns again.

I mean, have you watched any of the Republican Presidential debates? You really should. Those guys have a whole new list of disasters they want to inflict on us.

*money

Adding video to channels (Money) - requested by Eklek.

@NetRunner

I know "you're saying" there are still valid reasons to participate. You say that every disagreement.

I'm saying, the only thing you're doing is giving legitimacy to a broken, fucked up, backward ass system..
One that will NOT produce the desired outcome in the appropriate time scale.

If Dems won every Congressional & Presidential election for the next 40 years, how much progress do you think would be made?

Green energy, free college all, universal healthcare and the deconstruction on the Military Industrial Complex?

Stop deluding yourself, all the same laws that have allowed the corporate coup d'etat to occur will still be in place.

Those interests would continue to manipulate the system and it would be made all-the-more-easy now that they only have one party to focus on.

Dems have had majority control of Congress since 2006 and what do we get. Expansion of Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts.
Bailouts for Gazillionaires.
Healthcare mandates that funnel more money to shitty service providers.
[oh, thanks for letting me stay on parents insurance. Nevermind that the cheap ass insurance refuses to pays for a goddamn thing.]

To boot, Barack Obama current King of the Democrats murdered a citizen without a valid charge or cause of action.

That goes against all the supposed values of Democrats and you wholly ignored addressing this GLARING issue with your "Dems are better" argument.

So it's clear, QuantumNetrunner, that your not here to expand your horizons or any of that nonsense.

You're only here to make excuses for the continuation of broken system.

All cause you're to scared or indoctrinated to call Dems out for what the really are: Corporate sponsored slimeballs clinging to the coat tails of ACTUAL progressive individuals,movements and ideas.. for Public Relations purposes.

@GenjiKilpatrick: You're conflating a dysfunctional democracy with the douchebags who're making it dysfunctional.

Obama is not Bush. Give me a fucking break.

Click through this giant list and tell me one thing that Bush would ever even consider:
http://obamaachievements.org/list

You can't.

The system we've tried to setup can work, if only evil douchebags would stop trying to get rich, kill people, take a dump on mother nature, and fuck over everyone else in the process. So no, I'm not giving up on it.

It's that old theory of Republicans claiming the system doesn't work, then once in office, they prove it.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history. Worse than the "do-nothing" congress of 1948. These assholes won't even debate an unbelievably important right fucking now jobs bill, but keep shoving horseshit bills about abortion, school lunches, PBS, obamas birth certificate, and combined with the stalling tactics, secret holds, massive fillibusters and so much nonsense it makes people want to throw a chair through their television.

Approval:
Obama: 48%
Congress: 13%

I wonder what that's all about? Could Obama's low numbers mean people are mad he isn't fixing this shit, and Congresses because they're a fucking corrupt, pathetic and evil bunch of grifters that everyone hates? Hmmmmmm....

Oh and check this out: The Republicans created Bin Laden, the Democrats took him out. Talk about cleaning up someone else's mess, sheesh!


@Quantummushroom is dead-on about Clinton and glass-steagal. I point my finger directly at that motherfucker for knowingly signing off the collapse of the international finance world.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 20th, 2011 10:09pm PDT - promote requested by marinara.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history

Pht - not to put too fine a point on it - but the LESS PRODUCTIVE government is, the better off the American people are. Clinton got saddled with a GOP congress in 1992 that put the brakes on his agenda. And America BENEFITED. President Reagan and Bush1 had Democrat congresses to put the brakes on them. And America BENEFITED.

Who are the two worst presidents in American history. Bush2 and Barak Obama. Why? Because under both of them government spending has skyrocketed, fiscal policy has deteriorated, and government has increased in size, scope, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. And what is the common thread to both of these presidents? The Congress was the SAME PARTY as the President, and thier administrations were "highly productive" (in the sense that they passed a ton of legislation).

So you guys should be praising the Tea Party for slamming the brakes on a lousy government, because when thin-skinned, tin-plated self-deluded dictator-wannabes like Obama take office we NEED a 'do nothing' Congress shutting them down. Problem with Obama is he is such a crazy dictator that he just keeps doing what he wants with czars and cabinets. In a sane world, every American would demand he be thrown out of office, pilloried in town square, and then run out of town on a rail to be dumped in Cuba, or Venezuala, Iran, or some other communist dictatorship where he could feel more at home.

These ***holes won't even debate an unbelievably important ... jobs bill,"

Good, because it isn't important. It's a disaster. And you are allowed to whine about the GOP 'not debating it' only after it makes it out of the SENATE, which is controlled by the Democrats. The fact that even the Democrats can't stand this loser piece of crap should tell you a lot about how awful it is.

I would just point out one thing for @NetRunner - the OWS movement is not the anti-tea party per se, over 70% of them identify as politically independent.

http://occupywallst.org/article/70-percent-ows-supporters-independent/

What does he say about it today?

"n a speech ..." Nice missing letter.

There is an obvious difference between the two parties. Their idealogies couldn't be any more different. If they were both the same, you wouldn't have gridlock in congress. Take up a vote about taxes, abortion, jobs, economic policy, immigration, marriage, etc and you will see marked differences. They go right down party lines, and people are willing to fight to the death over some of these issues.

They do have some superficial simularities. They are both the same in that they both sell out to lobbyists. They are both the same in that they only care about getting re-elected and their campaigns are funded by corporate donors. They are both the same in that they are out of touch with the american people and only pay them lip service. These issues stem from just basic human nature. The type of people who are attracted to public service tend to be greedy, selfish, arrogant, and more than willing to sell out to the entrenched power structure. These are character flaws which are universally human and do not prove anything other than that human nature is inherently corrupt.

The difference is, "taxocrat" is perfect, because Democrats, in every situation, demand higher taxes as the solution.



>> ^DarkenRahl:

If I use enough clever alterations to the party i dislike's name, everyone will eventually come to agree with me.
To wit:
Repuppetcons
Nazicons
Rethuglicans
Rethugs
Repukes
Repigs
Repugnicants
Bushbots
Republiturd
Your move, QM.

Re: The Genji Files

While I don't appreciate the needless name-calling, I still admire your commitment to your ideals. You're not the first to be upset with the inherent unfairness of a human-designed political system which reflects the inherent unfairness of life.

Dirty Harry said it best: I hate the goddamn system, but until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it.

If you think you have a Better Way, then start your own political party. The Libertarians did. The Greens did.




Sidenote: Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S. Citizen WITHOUT A TRIAL OR CHARGES, even.

Couldn't care less. The "victim" wasn't some tea-sipping hipster in SoHo, he was a committed jihadist vermin overseas, networking alongside other jihadist vermin. Don't pity him, he died doing what he loved: being an America-hating muslim shitbird. hahahahaha.

What amazes me is it's taken more than two years to find footage of an elected representative predicting the outcome ten years in advance.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So it's clear, QuantumNetrunner, that your not here to expand your horizons or any of that nonsense.
You're only here to make excuses for the continuation of broken system.

I'm here for exactly the reasons I say I am. You're not suggesting any kind of solution to anything, you're just doing your best to get everyone in earshot to buy into your cynicism and despondency.

You have some better way to go about fixing the country than being engaged in the political process? Again, I'm all ears.

Until you have some meaningful, constructive course of action to suggest, I'm gonna keep calling what you're advocating what it really is: apathy. Worse, it's evangelical apathy. You're absolutely pissed that someone else thinks getting involved in the political process might bring results. You don't want to accept that -- you want to feel comfortable with your justifications for sitting on your ass and whining, rather than doing the hard work that's really needed.

Me, I don't have any problem saying Democrats aren't saints, and that even if Republicans didn't exist, there'd still be a ton of work to do to get us where we need to be. If someone creates some sort of 3rd option, with a real potential for both gaining political power, and is credibly more committed to the kinds of policies I support, I'd drop Democrats without giving it a second thought.

But no such option exists, nor is it likely to come about anytime soon. So, I'd rather just try to turn the Democratic party into that kind of option. The infrastructure is already there, and the party platform already says the kinds of things I'd like it to say, now we just need to get the actual congresscritters to be zealous about fighting for the implementation of those ideas, with the fringe guys talking about doing a lot more.

That seems a whole hell of a lot more achievable, and more compatible with liberal goals, than your vague notions of upending the system by indiscriminately demonizing both parties, as if there's really no difference between them. That sounds to me like the way extreme right-wing people talk, not the kinds of people who want some sort of progressive government.

>> ^ghark:

I would just point out one thing for @NetRunner - the OWS movement is not the anti-tea party per se, over 70% of them identify as politically independent.
http://occupywallst.org/article/70-percent-ows-supporters-independent/


That doesn't surprise me in the least. Ultimately to me that's the big X-factor about OWS.

My optimist side says this is just the right kind of brew from which a strong, left-leaning 3rd party could arise. Or maybe just an authentic, left-wing version of the Tea Party -- people who don't swear fealty to the Democratic party, but who will force the politicians of both parties to cater to them via the threat of outside challenges in primaries and general elections. At a minimum, maybe it'll just help keep the media talking about the real problems (unemployment, wealth inequality, corporate misdeeds), and not the fake problems (debt, inflation, regulatory "uncertainty").

My cynical side tells me that its heavy resistance to making alliances with either party (including even established liberal groups like MoveOn), as well as its assiduously non-partisan messaging, is ultimately going to prevent it from being more than just a news fad. I'm worried that their somewhat rigid adherence to "independence" winds up meaning they get themselves political isolation, and not political revolution.

I'm hopeful about the potential for OWS to bring about a real reset of the political system, but each day that goes by without them making any attempt to translate the protest's energy into some sort of direct political action (i.e. voting, petitioning, primarying, general strikes, etc.), a bit of that hope fades. If all they ever plan to do is occupy public spaces and wave signs, they're just going to wind up being ignored.