More Left Wing Garbage from Hollywood
-
txwaho — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 11:06 PM)
Well I for one am going to read that book. And another I just got to read is Atlas Shrugged. I have no idea how I missed it all these years. Just watched Part I and II of the movie. I understand Part III just came out this month, Sept 2014.
An independent mind is difficult to enslave.
When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals. -
-
tom_grainger88 — 13 years ago(February 06, 2013 08:26 PM)
so the tea party are in favour of big business squeezing out mom and pop stores? they are in favour of dismantling the free market system? the problems caused by corporations is not a right/left issue.
the point of the free market is that you take your money and take risks, if they pay off you take the reward, if they dont you pay the penalty. that is a conservative philosophy, equal oppurtunity, not gurantees of equal results, that if you mess up you dont get put right back to the same position you fell from. so when the bush administration went down the path of bailing out wall street, they essentially picked favourites, they interfered in free market capitalism for their pals and not for others. they removed the risks and penalites that make market corrections and penalise those who mess up. true conservatives dont support corporate welfare, true conservatives dont say cut the tax for one group but leave it high on another, thats not a free and fair society, this is what a lot of the smart people of the tea party believe, they arent hippy left wingers, the ones who really care about returning to a one person one vote system and constitutional freedroms are true conservatives and anti corporate advantages, anti crony capitalism.
go look up bill moyers interview of david stockman, an honest wallstreeter, one of the few, the guy who was reagans white house chief of staff, helped set up the reagan tax cuts, an advocate of free market capitalism vs what is now in place, a true conservative, a true believer in free market economics, who is disgusted with the corporate entitlements and advantages they receive. go educate yourself on wether this is a left/right issue and stop falling for the party lines of oh just ignore anything said on this issue, it must be some whiney liberal bs, just fight them on it whatever they say and dont let them have any ground. having a democracy skewed by the wealthiest 400 citzens to favour them more than the other 300 million does not benefit conservatism, big business is able to just push more cash into growing the government, if you want small government stop the wealthy being able to pump politicians public profile with steroid levels of cash, enforce anti trust laws to stop one cabal being able to control an entire market, let the little guy have a shot which keeps up competition and leans out the business sector and cuts the fat and profiteering, stop special interests being able to lobby and have disproportionate access to the halls of power to get themselves tax dollars poured into their own coffers at inflated prices in no bid contracts. stop them taking tax money meant for the troops and the war from being poured into their own pockets uncontested for things that arent needed and dont contribute. haliburtion charging the US people 100 dollars per hamburger fed to the troops in no bid contracts becuase of their links to politics, when other companys, with true competition could have provided an equal service at half the cost, that is not free market conservatism. tax dollars are wasted through corporate corruption, the deficit was created to fund some of this stuff, corporate welfare supported by those who oppose welfare for those who really dont have any assets like stock options or real estate to sell off to provide capital, that doesnt help the right, it surrenders the moral high ground, and it loses elections.
you arent truly of the right just because you parrot the corporate sponsored line of fox news, allowing coporations to ship the jobs to india doesnt help your country, it helps that company and costs you, whatever side you stand on. less people in work, less people with disposable income, that hits everyone including the independant business owner who were once the backbone of conservative politics but are now ignored unless they can match the corporations dollar for dollar in lobbying and contributions. burying it as simply leftist stops people thinking for themselves and supporting individualism. do you really want the only place you can work to be somewhere with a name tag, with no chance to go out and start your own business because only the big dogs can get a share? do you really want to hear the death knell of entrepreneurism?
also this is a remake of a movie whos story was that communists only run countrys through brain washing, a left or right view? dont label things with your own prejudices. -
stringpickin1 — 12 years ago(April 20, 2013 08:59 PM)
wow.. I see you and I may have some differences on some other topics.. but we certainly agree on this one..
It really is at the point where it has to be dismantled and rebooted.. taking this guy or that guy out or this lobby or that is not going to get it done. Just so stinking corrupt..
As I have stated so many times.. the left and right is really just one big party and for the most part the majority of all people in our nation are governed by the manipulation of those in control of both of these partys that don't see the bull But I do think that right now in the time of our history, the left is making a bigger headway in forwarding the "entire partys motive" than the conservative so called side.. They masterfully use ebbs and flows of the groups like little string quartets -
rj-27 — 12 years ago(May 22, 2013 06:46 AM)
Exactly. Republicans, Democrats and big corporations are all part of the same hypocrisy.
One entity feeds the other and perpetuates the myth that government is for governed. This is the evil of politics. Government comes at the expense of the governed and the only ones who profit are the temporary caretakers elected to feed at the trough with their corporate bedfellows. -
oversplayer — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 10:48 PM)
"Republicans, Democrats and big corporations are all part of the same hypocrisy?"
Not hardly.
Republicans want to protect the ultra rich from having to pay any taxes at all by depriving poor, hungry children of food. Limbaugh and O'Reilly each make obscenely high incomes for lying and spreading hate (Rush brings home $50 million a year. That's an awful lot of oxycontin.)Yet both begrudge the poor any government assistance at all and incessantly disparage them whether their precarious positions in life are self inflicted or not.
Now Republicans want to eliminate unemployment benefits, and Congressional Democrats are the only ones standing between this cruel, monstrous idea and it's becoming reality.
Right wingers call people who need unemployment insurance benefits "takers" and accuse them of not wanting to work but instead wanting to lie on their couches and watch TV all day and have their bills taken care of by the government.
Hey, morons: I've got a flash for you: People don't qualify for unemployment insurance benefits unless they had been working and lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And, in order to continue receiving these benefit checks, they are required to prove that they are trying their best to find new employment.
But the multimillionaire and billionaire Wall Street swine, who pay themselves obscenely high bonuses for tanking the economy, don't want to part with one penny to help those who are less fortunate than they.
Right wing Republicans also want to cut $40 billion (that's billion with a "B") from the food stamp program while their House Speaker, John Boehner, refuses to even allow a vote to increase the minimum wage. So you have married couples who are both employed full time, but they still can't afford to feed their families with their big $290 per week gross salaries.
The sociopaths on the far right refuse to acknowledge the obvious: When the government assists poor people so they can survive with some semblance of dignity, what do the poor do with the additional money? They spend it on luxuries and frivolities like food and clothing. In other words, the money goes right back into the economy and strengthens it.
On the other hand, if the mega wealthy continue to get a greater and greater percentage of this country's wealth (like, say, by paying a lower tax rate on interest income than hard working people pay on income they worked and sweated for), what do they (the ultra rich) do with the excess?
Three words: Grand Cayman Island.
Yet the tiny percentage of Americans who have net worth of, say, $100 million or more, have the angry, jealous, mean spirited, right wing public bamboozled into believing that the tax increases that we need so desperately will affect the middle, and the upper middle, class, when it would really only affect the chosen few whose fortunes could support their descendants in grand style for centuries to come.
As John Steinbeck said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Just like the gun nuts are convinced that no rational gun safety laws should be enacted because "Obama is coming to take our guns away" when the real reason for all the anti-gun safety propaganda is that it's financed by the big gun manufacturers who are making fortunes off a product that kills 33 Americans per day each and every day of the year, more and more of whom are children.
But hey who am I to try to wake the intellectually challenged right wing from it's delusional, eternal slumber?
Brainwashing isn't easy to undo. -
rj-27 — 12 years ago(January 16, 2014 08:16 AM)
Oversplayer, no matter how you dice it up, you have the same revolving door of politicians fighting over the same bag of groceries, bought and paid for by the taxpayers which include the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity who definitely pay their "fair share".
Government is a gang of thieves writ large; tyranny backed up by threat of violence.
Rich Democrats are even more hypocritical than their Republican counterparts, if that's possible. -
txwaho — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 11:25 PM)
oversplayer, I always get a kick out of the Leftists saying how the RICH RIGHT don't help the poor. But they never seem to have a comeback for all the RICH LEFT HOLLYWOOD types (I won't even pick on the political, musician, or athletic types) like Moore, Penn, Babs, Oprahs, and on and on, who I haven't noticed "helping the poor" recently, by giving them anything, but more importantly by helping them MAKE THEIR OWN WAY. You'll never be able to give them out of poverty. But I guess having them spend $10 to come see your movie or blindly follow your feel-good talkshow network is at least taking their mind off their plight, right??
An independent mind is difficult to enslave.
When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 08:53 AM)
much of what you say i sympathise with, but the democrats, maybe they are slightly less corrupt at this point, but on the whole they are still very beholden to their benefactors, and personally i would rather not have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. just look at hillary clinton, true establishment through and through, plays both sides of the fence, in public agreeing sometimes that wallstreet needs reigning in, then at fundraisers telling wallstreet they have been unfairly demonised and she shall protect them. look at the money she raised while out of office due to illness, millions of dollars straight in her war chest, but like all politicians, they are not taking that money from those donors to not listen to those donors first. that is why the donors give the money, they know she can be 'trusted' unlike an elizabeth warren who terrifies them. unless the democratic party makes a major course correction, it is not a savior if you want personal freedoms, money out of politics, equal opportunity and fair markets.
look at obama, all the things he criticised the bush administration for he then either continued or expanded, warrantless wiretapping, signature drone strikes, no bid military contracts, lobbyists running the show (why is the head of the fcc the former chief lobbyist for the cable companies? why is just about every economic advisor a former and usually future wallstreeter? obama said they would stop lobbyists working in washington, then made so many loopholes for guys they liked, and now has just dropped all pretense and quietly forgotten having said it) why is a constitutional scholar executing american citizens without even a trial in absentia? why is the fda saying they do not even know what is in the food? why are more tax loopholes being created that happen to benefit large bipartisan donors? i would have been behind obama if he had ever read his little posters with the word change on them, the idea of someone 'changing the game not just playing the old games a little better' would have been a benefit to anyone interested in returning to a functioning democracy. but that is not what happened, change on the outside, continuity on the inside.
the republican do nothing congress certainly makes everything more painful and difficult so they are certainly not an answer either, but if any candidate proposed an amendment to get money and lobbyists out of politics to get us back to government of the people for the people, or to end corporate personhood and thus at least limit the financial 'political speech' (bribes) of international corporations, as long as the candidate was not batsheet insane, they would be worth supporting on that alone, as at least it would be the first major step back towards a system where the representatives are answerable to the voters first, second and last rather than the voters being an afterthought to get to once the needs of the donors have been serviced. we have a system where in one house the candidate with more money wins 96% of the time and in the other house it is 94% of the time. whoever sells out more to big donor money, 50% of which comes from the 400 richest americans, wins, and anyone who does not obey those special interests either has no hope of reelection or never even gets to stand for office in the first place, as another more 'trustworthy' (ie agreeable to the donors) candidate is often picked to stand by the party system.
people should remember there were in fact elections in the soviet union, only before the public election, the candidates to run were picked by members of the party, so the public only got to choose from those approved of by the powerful minority. i am finding it harder to see the difference with the US system, where before we get to an election, the candidates we may choose from have been picked out for us by the donors, as only candidates 'with a reasonable chance of winning' end up on the ballot or with major press coverage or in the debates. the difference is in that by the end of the soviet union 9.7% of the population were party members and therefore part of the pre selection process, in the US im not sure how many decimal places would be needed to show the population involved in the pre selection process, i believe 400 out of 300,000,000 would be about 0.0001%? when the system is less democratic than the soviet union, we have a bigger problem than what the corporate tax rate should be.
get us back to a democracy first, then we can debate policy, right now no matter which candidate backed by most of the same people gets in, the results are basically the same with only a different letter next to the name. -
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 19, 2014 12:55 AM)
to get us back to government of the people for the people
I see some hope in Dr. Ben Carson. Of course, he is trying, well the ones who want him, are trying to raise money, cause whether we like it or not, you can't do
anything
without money. He says he will run if the people clamor for him. And I say Yes, but they will kill him also. So we shall see. Then there is the belief, which I am being convinced of more every day, that Obama will not leave. He is now our President for Life.
An independent mind is difficult to enslave. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 20, 2014 04:10 AM)
the belief that obama is president for life? which movie was this? that is the same crazy talk that was said about jimmy carter and bill clinton by right wing conspiracy theorists that somehow the left only claim to care about the poor to buy their support to establish dictatorship, it is lunacy. show one single example of anything one of the weakest presidents has done to over throw the entire system? and if you say recess appointments i will point out that he has made less than almost any other, the people who say that are just trying to criticise him for doing anything at all ever about anything to try and force him to sit on his hands and run out the clock, so the people saying that are usually themselves the ones only interested in personal power rather than policy.
-
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 20, 2014 07:51 PM)
Well, Tom, you will have to admit that he has not been like any of the other foregoing Presidents, and seems to blatantly and regularly disregard the Constitution and put America to shame before other countries. So as time is passing, I am beginning to believe that he could pull it off. Of course, it will be done in such a way that it is
for our benefit
, don't you know, just like every other liberty that has been encroached upon. I will keep you in mind either way: if it DOES happen, or if it DOES NOT, which I am hoping is the case. Sends cold chills to me every time just to think about it. We are definitely lost as a country if that happens.
I describe myself as fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and a personal responsibilitartian. - Amy Alkon, award-winning nationally syndicated advice columnist -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 23, 2014 03:02 AM)
can you back any of this up at all? tell me some of the things he has done like no other? the patriot act and going after whistleblowers, crony capitalism, special interests, no bid government contracts, the loss of privacy, presidents declaring war without congressional approval, these are systemic problems which have been going on for decades, through multiple administrations, the trend started with allowing certain groups to pour untold money into the political system, it started with supreme court decisions at the end of the 1970s and was well under way during the reagan era, it has only gotten worse since, the problems are money bundling super pacs and dark money contributions and 'money is speech, so if i have more money i get to have more speech' instead of one man one vote.
too many people get distracted with oh if my guy gets in it will be better or its this or that person and it will all be ok if they are gone. it stops people actually doing something about the root causes, democrat or republican, obama or bush, the results are the same, money in politics and lobbyists privileged positions are the real problems, but people get bogged down bickering about which animal should be on the lapel pin of the corrupt politician in office, as if a crook wearing an elephant is better than a crook wearing a donkey.
the problems need to be addressed from the ground up, until the system of how the political power holders are influenced is repaired it makes no difference. the fact is the people benefiting from this system dont need to set up a ruler for life, the only way to have a chance of being elected is to have a ton of money which means in an election we can only pick from candidates who are sell outs who have promised to run the system for the benefit of their benefactors. one of the things that stops people really changing things is the illusion we have a choice or any influence, that things can really be different if we vote for this guy instead of that guy, when both guys are backed by a lot of the same people and either will help those same people over the rest of us. if they set up a dictator it would probably actually push people to finally stand up in numbers and lead to a system reset, the quickest way the people now in power would lose power is to give people something to seriously fight against, so sitting around talking about king obama is distraction, smoke and mirrors, it is political games to get you to support this guy against that guy, it is theatre. while you are discussing dictators you are not discussing campaign contributions and oil subsidies, which usually the people talking about dictators are just as responsible for.
i really dont feel the political games or wether this side or that side is winning this week really matters in the long run but i am still curious of the examples of what obama has done that is so groundbreaking. the idea he has the spine or the desire to be a dictator is absurd, he is completely weak, his negotiation tactic is usually to offer the other side everything they actually want from the start then ends up being negotiated even further towards their side, he barely ever fights back politically, the whole rabid paranoid hatred of obama seems to be totally pointless, he is just another bought politician like ted cruz or harry reed or mitt romney, not really any worse. i mean look at 'obamacare', the panic and hatred, oh my god its communism, the whole thing is a nonsense to score political points, the fact is the affordable care act was thought up by the heritage foundation as a market based solution to avoid having state healthcare, we all know it is a conservative proposal, we all know mitt romney implemented it while govenor, we all know most of the republicans in senate or the house today supported it during the 1990s, yet we all pretend they actually think that the thing they were in favour of as pro business suddenly became marxist once they wouldnt get the political credit for it. they know it will be popular and successful so they dont want their opponents getting credit, that is the long and the short of it, the whole making up stuff about lenin saying healthcare would lead to socialism like ben carson lied about is all nonsense fear obama and take away his power by voting for me or my team instead tripe. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 06:35 PM)
this is a good story for anyone interested in a blatant example of big money in politics even if its from a guy I don't agree with mostly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxF_u0q9yPw&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=400 -
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 07:04 PM)
Remind me to charge you for that extra bit of work I shouldn't have to do if you
really
wanted us to follow it.
whine whine whine
I describe myself as fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and a personal responsibilitartian. - Amy Alkon, award-winning nationally syndicated advice columnist. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 07:17 PM)
no problem just thought that you might find that video interesting, it goes to my point that both sides have crooks, the only answer may be something like a wolfpac solution, going through the less corrupted state legislatures and changing the way the big name politicians get elected, rather than hoping the foxes will guard the chicken coop.
Love talking with you. Just haven't had time to answer your last challenge.