Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
While America Aged

While America Aged

By Roger Lowenstein
$17.13

more items

 
Report

Too Big to Jail

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 2, 2011
AP / J. Scott Applewhite

Former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince, left, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who was a senior adviser and chairman of Citigroup during the mortgage and financial crises, testify on Capitol Hill in 2010.

By Robert Scheer

Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for “misleading investors” demonstrates a damning admission of culpability? 

So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation’s financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?

Rubin’s tenure atop the world of high finance began when he was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, before he became Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary and pushed through the reversal of the Glass-Steagall Act, an action that legalized the formation of Citigroup and other “too big to fail” banking conglomerates.

Rubin’s destructive impact on the economy in enabling these giant corporate banks to run amok was far greater than that of swindler Bernard Madoff, who sits in prison under a 150-year sentence while Rubin sits on the Harvard Board of Overseers, as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and as a leader of the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project.

Rubin was rewarded for his efforts on behalf of Citigroup with a top job as chairman of the bank’s executive committee and at least $126 million in compensation. That was “compensation” for steering the bank to the point of a bankruptcy avoided only by a $45 billion taxpayer bailout and a further guarantee of $300 billion of the bank’s toxic assets.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Those toxic assets and other collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps were exempted from government regulation by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Rubin helped design while he was treasury secretary and which was turned into law when Rubin protégé Lawrence Summers took over that Cabinet post. 

In arguing that the derivatives market in housing mortgages and other debt obligations required no government oversight, Summers told Congress, “First, the parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies. ... Second, given the nature of the underlying assets—namely supplies of financial exchange and other financial instruments—there would seem to be little scope for market manipulation. ...”

Oops. One wonders if Summers, who went on to be president of Harvard after playing such a disastrous role in the federal government, ever asked his mentor Rubin what went wrong. After all, it was Rubin who was a honcho at the “sophisticated financial institution” of Citigroup when, as the Securities and Exchange Commission filing against the bank explains, Citigroup structured and marketed a $1 billion toxic asset to investors without disclosing that it was simultaneously betting against that asset.

Back in January of 2008, knowing full well of the chicanery of his own bank and others with which he was quite familiar, Rubin nonetheless told an audience at Cooper Union in New York that the turmoil in the markets was “all part of a cycle of periodic excess leading to periodic disruption.” CNNMoney, reporting on his talk, noted that Rubin “doesn’t seem particularly alarmed. ... And the economic problems that he did acknowledge were blamed on just about everyone but the major financial players.”

Rubin, who became a key adviser to the Obama campaign, has long cultivated an image as a do-gooder by making philanthropic contributions that deflect attention from the consequences of his own grievous actions. He has played a major role in shaping Obama administration economic policy not only through former aides like Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner but through the Hamilton Project, which he has funded at the Brookings Institution. The Hamilton Project has had much influence over the Democratic Party, and President Barack Obama as a young senator was the project’s first public speaker.

But facts these days tend to intrude in ways inconvenient to the superrich, who assume they can control the narrative. This month the Hamilton Project released a depressing assessment of the results of the era of radical market deregulation that Rubin’s policies launched, particularly as it had a horrendous effect on children. 

Referring to the “Great Recession,” dismissed by Rubin at its inception as a mere blip in the business cycle, the report noted that the family income of the median child in the U.S. has fallen nearly 14 percent in the past five years and is now 7 percent lower than in 1975, concluding that while the income of the top 10 percent of families with children has increased 45 percent in the last 35 years, “half of America’s children are worse-off than their counterparts 35 years ago.”

That’s a telling obituary for the illusion, fostered by Robert Rubin as effectively as anyone, that the 22 percent of children in the United States who suffer below the poverty line and the offspring of multimillionaires like Rubin are living in the same America.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: American Decline Is Crushing the Middle Class

Next item: Chris Hedges Arrested in Front of Goldman Sachs



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By heterochromatic, December 27, 2011 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

and was always enchanted by Horselover Fat

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

he’s more partial to frogs

http://michelesworld.net/dmm2/frog/joke/saymech.jpg

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, December 27, 2011 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

Does Heterochromatic dream of electric sheep?

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 25, 2011 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Ana, thank you


http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129174
759063778441.jpg


Robert, in the final analysis I attack lazy and
unconsidered opinions, not the people offering them.

You might be saying something more about yourself
than I if you would deny my humanity and dismiss me
this way, this day.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 25, 2011 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Of course, Robert, you could be a computer program, too.  Trolls often work in teams, one playing the straight man and one the joker.  There is no reason not to automate.

However, I don’t believe heterochromatic is a troll, natural or mechanical.

Report this

By Robert, December 25, 2011 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pay careful attention to the heterochromatic comments, you are being trolled by a computer. Largely random catch phrases lumped together loosely based around a targeted post.
The psychopathic right, the 1%, know they lack numbers in forums, so they are intending to run computer programs to flood forums with junk postings, to basically silence all opposition voices.
Clearly in testing phase, they are seeing how many people they can take off topic, how many people can be fooled by random assemblages of catch phrases and how effectively they can silence genuine comments.
Forums owners and moderators need to pay careful attention to posts so those automated responses cut be shut down as quickly as possible and their IP addresses noted so they can be blocked

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 7, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

ma joad,—- ya cain’t make ‘em stick to the post, ma. 

they just keep coming and speaking their mind. they’re the people and they’ll go
on forever.

Report this

By ma joad, November 7, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Arg…I cannot stand these people who have hijacked this website for their own personal political arguments. Could we stick to Scheer’s articles and the points HE is making?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 7, 2011 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

grokker——google   “Hilary: The Movie”  and then Citzens United v FEC

During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it
had the power under the constitution to prohibit the publication of books and
movies if they were made or sold by corporations.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2011 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

So getting the money out is against the first amendment of the Constitution?  Mitt Romney believes corporations are people and money is voice he must be an avid scholar of the Constitution too!

It would appear anyone who is involved in the money of politics would be an avid supporter of the Romney POV.

Undue influence is not hard work, I see it more as bribes and the good old boy mentality, nothing but manipulations by the power brokers. Hence the 1 percent buttering their own bread and not caring if anyone else as the huddled masses has any bread.

History is nothing but a Groundhog Day!

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2011 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

truedigger3, November 7 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

Re: By grokker, November 7 at 12:18 am


heterochromatic is a TROLL and he is not going anywhere.
His mission is to hang around ready to obfuscate, confuse, mislead, lie and irritate…etc.

I find his posts far more palatable as they scroll by unread. I think you both would also.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 7, 2011 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

Re: By grokker, November 7 at 12:18 am


heterochromatic is a TROLL and he is not going anywhere.
His mission is to hang around ready to obfuscate, confuse, mislead, lie and irritate…etc.

Report this

By grokker, November 7, 2011 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

@heterochromatic   Your examples are so full of shit as to be incomprehensible. Get real dude, or post to rush limpballs site.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Outraged——

yes….it would violate the First Amendment….


it would be difficult to enforce and require much
greater federal government control over the elections
and over expression of opinions that are not DIRECTLY
part of the electoral campaigns as well.

someone wants to release a movie that appears to
satirize someone running for office and it becomes
something that the federal government may disallow
from being shown in theaters or on television.

someone wants to stage a play in DC that mocks a
president or some office-holder right when the
primaries are about to begin…..TRO !!!!

chilling chilling chilling effect.

someone wants to donate money to Occupy DC as they
protest the policies of the administration right as
the Republicans are trying to challenge Obama’s re-
ection ???????

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 6, 2011 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

Re:  heterochromatic

Can you qualify your position as to why taking the
money out of elections would be: “unconstitutional,
undemocratic and will prevent change.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 6, 2011 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

you don’t even deserve a troll and I wasn’t trying to be funny. Progressives aren’t
going to take power in the Arab League states for a while yet.

Desirable, but not realistic. Generations of authoritarianism aren’t undone
instantly.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 6, 2011 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

Re: By heterochromatic, November 6 at 3:38 pm

heterochromatic,

You are not funny, idiot TROLL.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 6, 2011 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

——-all the progressive secular leaders of the Arab world——-


it will be pretty easy to topple all of them as there aren’t any in power——

Report this

By truedigger3, November 6, 2011 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

mm

Report this

By truedigger3, November 6, 2011 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Re: By JohnSwims, November 6 at 1:50 pm

JohnSwims,

Juan Cole is full of shit and he is a grade A misinformer and disinformer about the M.E.
If he is REALLY honest, he would had said that the so called"Arab Spring” is in reality a cold freezing dark gloomy dealdly winter. I am sure he knows that.
The end result of the so called “Arab Spring” is that all the progressive secular leaders of the Arab world will be toppled and replaced with theocratic radical Islamist regimes with the full support of the West who later will accuse these regimes of breeding terrorists and crimes against humanity setting the stage for a period of wars for “regime changes” tha will result of the balkanization of the M.E. into framgmented small states that will be easily exploited and controlled!!.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

—— Take money out of campaigning.  No paid for advertising, commercials, 
idiot flash TV/radio commercials.  All political campaigning to be regulated and
free on public and free media, TV, radio, web sites, news media, etc so that all
candidates have equal time, amount and exposure.—-


unconstitutional, undemocratic and will prevent change.

Report this

By JohnSwims, November 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Yes.  The Dictators(1%‘ers)and their puppets are too big and powerful to fail.  They run the whole game of Monoply with militaries which has crippled democracy in America and will soon eliminate democracy in the USA and in the world unless stopped.

All legal means should be used to destroy the millionaires and their puppets:  Congress, the mass news media and other fronts for the corrupt Democratic and Republican parties.

Juan Cole, the “Real Middle East Expert” presented his “10 Ways Arab Democracies Can Avoid American Mistakes” which must be applied in America to establish Real Democracy.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/10-ways-arab-democracies-can-avoid-american-mistakes.html

Juan Cole’s full resume at: http://www.juancole.com/about

“Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context.—-Cole commands Arabic, Persian and Urdu and reads some Turkish, knows both Middle Eastern and South Asian Islam. He lived in various parts of the Muslim world for nearly 10 years, and continues to travel widely there.”

He speaks the languates.  Not like the so called Middle East experts that don’t speak any of the languages, nor have lived there.  The phony think tank experts are another bunch of buffoons.

I asked Juan Cole to present on his blog, “Informed Comment” a modified version of his 10 Ways: “10 Ways America Could Establish Real Democracy”.  So far he hasn’t.

Here’s my modified version: “12 Ways America Could Establish Real Democracy”

1.  Take money out of campaigning.  No paid for advertising, commercials,  idiot flash TV/radio commercials.  All political campaigning to be regulated and free on public and free media, TV, radio, web sites, news media, etc so that all candidates have equal time, amount and exposure. 

Intelligent debates, not manipulated flash quiz shows.

2.  No elections on work days.
    Or make Election Day a national holiday with pay.

3.  Compulsory, government-run voter registration at age 18.

4.  Enforced compulsory voting.

5.  Reestablish the Bill of Rights.
      Full transparency and strict controls of spying, whatever to eliminate violations of individual rights.

6.  Separation of religion and state.  Avoid pandering to the fundamentalists,

7.  Downsize & elimilnate US military-industrial complex.
    Increase financial & political support for powerful UN military forces.

8.  Eliminate appointment of judges based on party interest.  No politicizing of judiciaries.
    “—the violations of individual rights that have become routine in the United States and which are defended by our increasingly
    corrupt judicial authorities, including a whole series of attorneys-general.” jc

9.  Remove all obstacles to unionization.
      Make it illegal to fire workers for trying to unionize.

10. Eliminate existing monopolies.
      Fight monopoly practices with strong antitrust legislation and enforcement.

11.  Stop corruption.of elections with observation by UN advisors.  US is corrupted!

12.  Congressional investigation of FDA’s conflict of interest, their executives are executives of pharmaceutical companies.
      Crimes:  Corporation profit, prevention of cures and control of food industry for profit, not health.

Report this

By grokker, November 6, 2011 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

I will never vote R or D again. In this upcoming election, it won’t matter one iota whether a Dem or Repub wins. The idea is to get people to start thinking outside their everyday cage and vote for something different. Vote National Socialist, vote Communist, what does it matter? Electoral politics in the U.S. is done, stick a fork in it. People on this thread talk about electability or that someone is not “known”. Frankly, being known means what? It means being marketed by the same corporate media that is controlling the messages. Known candidates can’t even get into the debates, so fuck being “known”. Vote with your heart and know that you aren’t going to “win” this time around or maybe even the next 5 times around.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 6, 2011 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Matt Emmons:

“I give the Tea Party marchers a lot more credit than most people I know do.”
__________________

The politically frustrated people in the Tea Party movement, who were sincerely attempting to have natural person candidates represent them, deserve respect.

However, corporate money completely co-opted their attempt, and their Tea Party revolt rapidly devolved into a conservative version of the Progressive Democrats of America — corporate party owned, corporate party candidate dedicated. For the Tea Party people to have kept their movement real they would have had to reject the corporate donor funding and refused to support corporate party candidates. It’s the job of the corporate party’s Democrats to fool half the voters all the time, and for the corporate party’s Republicans to fool the other half all the time.

The corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberals undeservedly expropriated the term “Left” and, by their actions and inactions, completely perverted the meaning of the term. With votes for corporate (R) & (D) candidates all being for the policies of the corporate persons, the only fair electoral contest would be one between natural person candidates honestly representing different people’s positions. The corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats dishonestly campaign to persuade people to vote against themselves, to benefit malevolent alien entities (corporations).

Nothing disturbs and frightens the corporate (R) & (D) party dedicated collaborators more than the prospect of national ballot access for candidates who are real people — not corporate manufactured products.

Real prospects for people’s representatives don’t run as corporate (R) & (D) party candidates. They stand against the corporate party’s candidates. Their campaigns are dependent upon the volunteer efforts of people, not the money of corporations.

It’s not necessary to be elected for a true advocate of change to win an election. But, to win without being elected, it is necessary for the true advocate of change to have the firm support of the people who claim they want that change.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By Druthers, November 6, 2011 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

I think all these pompous “deciders” are convinced they are too rich to jail.
How many do we see behind bars?

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

I just stood with Occupy Pueblo (CO) for an hour. About ten people out there. It was good. Drivers waving and honking, and we waved back. Lots of agreeable conversation, fresh air, and somebody gave me a sign that read, “GIVE A DAMN!” Which I was not super enthusiastic about, to be honest, but it gave the experience more authenticity and comedic value.

I totally support the movement, and I don’t really care what they decide it’s about. Any kind of organic, people-powered political action will lead to something better than what we have now, most likely. In fact, I give the Tea Party marchers a lot more credit than most people I know do. Sure, they are wrong about a lot of things, and sure, they wound up being corporate tools, but I think that most of those people’s hearts were in the right place, and they were showing up on the street because they felt that their view wasn’t expressed on TV. That is a totally unscientific analysis, based on conjecture and on my general theory of human nature, but there it is. Democracy in action!

I hope that OWS can find a way to include those people. It will require giving up a lot, but it might lead to a victory in the big picture. I expect to be called stupid and crazy (and a corporate, party beholden tool, and whatnot), but so it goes.

Go Occupiers!

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

David,, please stop being a jackass. 


people who disagree with your ideas are not
automatically to be labelled agents, cowards or
anything else..


perhaps you could produce that Certificate of Purity
that was issued to you by the angels of heaven….or
at least the paperwork from the Wizard of Oz when he
gave you the world’s greatest brain…...

before you go much further


http://th07.deviantart.net/fs12/150/i/2006/293/a/b/GO
T_MY_G_E_D__by_Jerome_K_Moore.jpg

Report this

By ardee, November 5, 2011 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, November 5 at 12:14 pm

OWS differs in two ways from this pattern in working out its myth: first, it does not appear to be seeking power, at least not in the usual political-party sense, and second, it appears to be trying to work out inclusive procedures.

Nicely stated. I would add :

OWS’ use of 99% refers of course to the fact that 1% of our population makes 100% of the decisions and reaps the majority of the rewards as well. While this movement speaks up for the rights of the 99% of us excluded from said decision making nowhere have they claimed to have the decision making power to act for us all. Instead they, through these protests, seek to educate, enlighten and awaken.

That this message is clearly a dangerous one can be seen here and elsewhere by the slimy reactions of the cockroaches who have come out of the woodwork to lie and distort at every turn.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Note how the agents of corporate conformity here, which have reacted with such expeditiousness to defend against advocacy for cessation of the obviously ruinous obedient corporate (R) & (D) party compliance, are anonymous entities… cowering behind non-human thing avatars.

The corporate compliant people first devolved into being consumers, and now they choose to become inanimate things, or abstract non-human entities… abandoning their former human identities.

American election popular mandates for corporate control of natural persons and all of Nature have been provided by pod people… mind-melded into corporate-state subservience.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 5, 2011 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

Lets face it, even the Green Party has its Madonnas who clearly do not want input from others, hell Cyr is a prime example of deluded self rigorousness.  Hearing from people who attempted to be included as a voice in the Greens, according to them, they found little difference in ignoring input just as from people attempting to make a point within the Democrats, like it or lump it, so don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out and go join the cowards.

Reading Cyr’s consistent insults, taunts his fractured exclusiveness, uninclusivness and deluded conclusiveness, I find his diatribes speak volumes about the Greens, (as if he speaks for all and every thing Grees, just as I speak for everything for the Democrats) ... yes all Democrats, that is to say according to Cry,  every living breathing Democrat is a coward, (It is reported, Repulcians are not required to be breathing) ...call me coward, .... I rest my case!

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 5, 2011 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

Ana, good comment.


as much as I get frustrated with OWS, I’m interested by
it, and in favor of it ( I think)  and want to see what
it becomes

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 5 at 11:18 am:

of course David you’re forgetting that the 99% isn’t protesting.  it’s just a very small group of people asserting, fictionally, that they speak for everyone.

I think the proper term might be ‘myth’.  Political parties construct myths in which their leadership claims to speak for the people, reason, nature, God, etc.  Actually, in most political parties, a great effort is made to exclude most of the people from decision-making processes.

OWS differs in two ways from this pattern in working out its myth: first, it does not appear to be seeking power, at least not in the usual political-party sense, and second, it appears to be trying to work out inclusive procedures.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 5, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

The young people in the Occupy Movement are attempting to find a means for the interests of 99% of natural persons to be represented… human interests, like having a future worth having for future generations… or (more to the point) having any future for future generations.

99% of the voters have through corporate (R) & (D) party loyalty succeeded in achieving a government wholly dedicated to serving the interests of corporate entities and 1% of natural persons.

The people dedicated to voting for the corporate party’s Republican and Democrat candidates have been incorporated into the corporate person. They have aligned themselves with alien entities that — like cancer —  have no concern whether their human hosts live or die.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 5, 2011 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

of course David you’re forgetting that the 99% isn’t protesting.  it’s just a very
small group of people asserting, fictionally, that they speak for everyone.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 5, 2011 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

The 99% who have voted for the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats have no credibility in protest, because we have all gotten what they corporate compliantly voted for, whether Republicans or Democrats were elected.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 5, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

If you do not see it my way, you are an imbecile, and idiot a coward, a moron and in all probability a Republican or the majority of the people who may be Democrats or Independents!

Great message Cyr, ... it makes me want to run down and sign up with the Green party! All this time I thought you were a Republican!

I see it now, its like a beacon of light the idea is to insult people into joining your way of thinking, such brilliance, I get it an embargo on brain physiology!

Report this

By ULYANOV, November 5, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The American people will not forget nor forgive the devastation Rubin and others have inflicted on the nation. He WILL be held accountable sooner or later.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 5, 2011 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

@David St Cyr——some people chose to participate in
the political process, not out of cowardice, but from
belief that they’re getting a pretty good deal in
this country.


You can take Jill Stein and you’ll find that she’s
neither known outside her state nor supported by the
people who do know her inside her state.

The 97% DIN’T support her.

So please consider that you’re sorta unlikely to be
on firm ground calling the people of Mass all
cowards.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 5, 2011 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

“We are not a silent majority. We are a majority that has been silenced.”
— Jill Stein (speaking at Occupy Boston, October 9, 2011)

If Jill Stein is “unelectable because she is unknown and undetectable” it will be because the 99% of voters, who chose to (R) & (D) collaborate with the corporate-state in 2008, will have free-will chosen to cowardly collaborate with the corporate-state again in 2012.

Are Americans unable to use all the many means easily available to them to virally support real people standing for election against the corporate manufactured Republicans and Democrats? No. They have a choice — support people’s candidates, or support corporate candidates (all abstentions are counted as acquiescence to corporate control).

A people who refuse to use elections to support the best people’s candidates deserve the worst they get from the corporate candidates they do support, because their callous lack of concern for future generations will surely accelerate the elimination of human habitable environment.

In this time of Obamanable transparency, people will either begin to use elections for a good purpose, or they will continue to support the sociopathic (R) & (D) policies of the corporate-state that will inevitably lead to total species extinction.

Election results indicate that human intelligence is rare — existing only in the 1% who resist the corporate control of all things natural, while a mindless 99% majority choose to carelessly corporate collaborate.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

http://www.jillstein.org/

Report this

By truedigger3, November 5, 2011 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

Re:By heterochromatic, November 4 at 11:06 pm

heterochromatic,

Paulson, W Bush, Bernanke, McCain and Obama etc ...they are all in it together serving Wall St.
Sometimes there is feigned fighting between this and that, but it all are theatrics and make believe bullshitting for public consumption.
It is glaringly obvious that this partisan thinking is obscelete. There is no REAL difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
The only difference is in rhetoric and Obama is good example of that.
Both of them are wings within the Finance/Corporate party.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

hnryh, WHAT do you imagine criminal malfeasance to
be?

Damned if I didn’t imagine that you wrote that
“instigating” fits in there.

I don’t know all that much about the bailout but
what I do remember is that Paulson stayed away from
the entire mess as it unfolded and it was the Federal
Reserve Bank in NY and Geithner who was running the
show until it all collapsed.

Paulson put his name to the bail-out plan that the
Congress worked over for a few days until Paulson
revised it….and Bush went on television to insist
upon….and then then both presidential candidates,
Obama and McCain, publiclu urged be passed.


A) Paulson’s “instigating” didn’t accomplish spit;
and

B)More important and higher-ranking people pushed the
plan

and

C) what about it could possibly be considered either
or criminal or even malfeasent as

D) the plan was considered in Congress and AUTHORIZED
by Congress?

Report this

By SteveL, November 4, 2011 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

Not trying to make excuses for the Clinton Administration but lets remember the
Republicans were trying fight everything he did.  Clinton tried to get Ben Laden
and the Republicans screamed, “Wag the dog”.  Also let’s not forget the
Republicans actually impeached Clinton for oral sex.

Report this

By hnryh, November 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree about Rubin, but why doesn’t
anyone ever write about Henry Paulson. 
As Secretary of the Treasury, he
directly instigated the bailout of AIG
so that they would be able to pay
Goldman Sachs 13 billion dollars.  If
that is not criminal malfeasance in
office, I can’t imagine what is.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,,, I’m still gonna go right on with saying that Reagan’s administration
was the worst of the 20th century and that it was understandable, but incorrect,
not to have indicted him after he testified that he didn’t remember anything bout
his cabinet meetings.

thanks anyway.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 4, 2011 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Re:  heterochromatic, November 4


Your comment: “Jill Stein is unacceptable because she’s
unelectable

because she is unknown and undetectable”

I agree.  Remember that old saying….“Only your best
of friends and your worst of enemies will tell you
the truth.”

Thanks heterochromatic.  Btw, I’m thinking that this has already been figured out (at least it
should be obvious)... remember that
Reagan…Reagan….Reagan mantra the righties (you and yours) were hammering on.

Bad call, nowhere near your base and DEFINITELY not independents….. LOL (it was entertaining to watch, I must admit)  It was like “Hey guys, let’s make a complete ass out of ourselves and then self destruct” (and all the disconnected slobs irrevocably and unanimously jump on the bandwagon….lol)

And then they were off….. implode, implode, implode.  It was hilarious to watch.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

Jill Stein is unacceptable because she’s unelectable

because she is unknown and undetectable

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 4, 2011 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

The Fallacy is in the inequality sponsored by its actions, seemingly a setup. One can cite the rule of law all day long and when the sun goes down, the absurdity is in the pudding of a corrupt and broken league of cronies a system of politicians and judges who auctioned themselves to the highest bidder.

No, it is ludicrous to say money is the same as people and corporations are people too, they the benefactors want the right to control and wield power as the few the 1 percent to play a rigged game without the accountability.

No, we must get the money out transparent or not, people are the only real people, only reason it was stated otherwise is they where hired in the first place to make the insane decision corporations are people too!

We have seen how corporations as people have been held accountable, from Enron to the bale out. While real people are chastised for being duped into believing they could buy a house they never could afford!

While we are at it, we should get rid of 150 lobbyists for every congress member too!

Report this

By Rixar13, November 4, 2011 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

Clear out weed smokers, plenty of room then… wink wink

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 4, 2011 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

@Arouete, Nov 3 11:47pm

Re: the Fallacy of Corporate Personhood:

Your comparison to “separate but equal”  (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1890) is valid, but what’s needed is the overturn equivalent to Brown v. Board of Education.

Understand your frustration, but holding corporations to “full personhood” is not the path to take. 

Instead, overturn Citizens United and remove the false precedent upon which it is based.
(see Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific RR http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/santa_clara_vs_southern_pacific.html)

But even that would leave us with corporations, unions and PACs holding undue influence on our electoral process.

The real cure is to remove non-person influences altogether.
Outlaw all political donations by non-breathing entities and non-US citizens.
Let the Koch Bros. (Charles and David, individually) contribute as much as they please. 
George Soros as well.
Let them go broke in the attempt to outdo each other.
But let us watch—full transparency.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 4, 2011 at 3:31 am Link to this comment

With the commenting entrance of Matt Emmons, manic-depressive swinging from his having POTUS voted for the empty hope of supporting a depraved Democrat in 2008 to his now investing his 2012 POTUS vote in the deepening degeneracy of Paul’s medieval retrogression, this thread rapidly devolved into the habitual quadrennial clusterfuck of the corporate party factions dedicated deliberating over their relative degrees of insanity in choosing this corporate party candidate, rather than that corporate party candidate… with all determined to continue their mutual support of the corporate persons’ continuum.

Why do the “progressive” liberals regularly restrict themselves to insane regressive choices?

What’s wrong with the candidacy of Jill Stein?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she’s a woman?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she actually opposes war?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she would demilitarize U.S. energy policy?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she supports tuition-free education K thru college?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she stands against the bankster foreclosure evictions?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she’d replace the Unemployment Office with an Employment Office?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she stood and still stands in solid support of Single-Payer (actual healthcare for all)?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she places her campaign’s fate in the hands of volunteers, rather than corporate funding?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she’s a sane, sensible, decent person possessed of a morality that’s not normal to see in a POTUS candidate?

Is Jill Stein unacceptable because she’s a real people’s candidate, seeking to represent the interests of natural persons, rather than corporate persons?

It’s begun — Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org/

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By Arouete, November 3, 2011 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

Easy question to answer. “Catch 22”  For the same reason Glaxo will pay $3 billion with no admission of guilt and no one goes to jail for manslaughter. Because corporations aren’t REALLY ‘persons’ when it comes to losing their freedom for criminal acts just like any person would.  They are only persons when it comes to the liberty to do harm and not loose liberty for harm done.  See The Fallacy of Corporate Personhood http://open.salon.com/blog/f_arouete/2011/09/18/the_fallacy_of_corporate_personhood

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons

Your comment: ” If you really read some of Paul’s
essays with an open mind, I think you will find there
is a lot of wisdom in the (real) conservative
economic viewpoint that has been driven underground.
It is news to me, honestly. I am a 35 y. o. Nader
voter who would never in my wildest dreams have
thought I’d ever note Republican. But classical
capitalism, as Paul conceives it, is not about greed.
For many Enlightenment thinkers, it was a path to
liberty.”

I would be an impossibility to “read Paul’s essays
with an open mind”.  You obviously are being led
astray.  By their very nature they are close
minded.  Christian Reconstructionalism doesn’t ALLOW
for any other tenet but their own.  It is a closed
system that is to be adhered to without question. 
They BELIEVE (not based on facts) but based upon what
they derive to be christian principles. It is a
strict adherence to their gospel. They want to govern
based upon their interpretation of an ancient book.

Paul uses doublespeak attempting to qualify his
radical and unmerited views.  This is why he “blames
the victim” and exonerates the villian.  It is an
antiquated view of an antiquated book.  That’s
BACKWARDS.

As far as the Enlightment goes, you need to revisit
that assessment with eyes wide open. The
Enlightenment WASN’T about setting up
theocracies….?!  It was about quite the opposite,
it was about questioning and challenging dogmatic
christian doctrine and cultural norms.  If you were
told that Christian Reconstructionalism (which is
what Ron Paul endorses) is rooted in the Enlightment,
YOU WERE TOLD A LIE.

From Wiki:
“No brief summary can do justice to the diversity
of enlightened thought in 18th-century Europe.
Because it was a value system rather than a set of
shared beliefs, there are many contradictory trains
to follow. As Outram notes, The Enlightenment
comprised “many different paths, varying in time and
geography, to the common goals of progress, of
tolerance, and the removal of abuses in Church and
state.”[32]
In his famous essay “What is Enlightenment?” (1784),
Immanuel Kant described it simply as freedom to use
one’s own intelligence. More broadly, the
Enlightenment period is marked by increasing
empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along
with increasing questioning of religious orthodoxy.
Historian Peter Gay asserts the Enlightenment broke
through “the sacred circle,” whose dogma had
circumscribed thinking.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

RenZo, thanks for the nudge. Because of a strange need to profess my new love for Liberty, and Austrian/Texan economics, I will now be staying up til 2am or so. Thanks a lot, Ron Paul.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons, November 3

Your Comment: “All I can tell you is that you need
to take Paul’s position in totality.”

Exactly. Which is exactly what I have done.  You
should too.  Keep looking and THINK very seriously
what a world “according to Paul” would really be.  No
birth control, no regulations and a theocracy.

“Ron Paul has spoken at Constitution Party events
and Phillips has spoken for Ron Paul in favor of his
candidacy for president. Rand Paul went on to serve
as the keynote speaker at a Minnesota Constitution
Party event.

The stated goal of the Constitution Party is to
reestablish America as a Republic organized around
biblical principles and under the authority of Jesus
Christ. An examination of the Constitution Party
platform shows clearly the influence of this movement
advocating not only positions on numerous issues that
have long been developed and promoted by Rushdoony
and his followers, but doing so in terms of the
reasoning put forth by Reconstructionists.

It’s not only Reconstructionists who hold these views
—they share them with the John Birch Society, the
Libertarian movement, the Moral Majority, and others.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/2679/rand_paul_and_the_influence_of_christian_reconstructionism__

Christian Reconstructionalism:
“While many Christians believe that biblical law
is a guide to morality and public ethics, when
interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in
advocating that civil law should be derived from and
limited by biblical law. For example, they support
the recriminalization of acts of abortion and
homosexuality, but also oppose confiscatory taxation,
conscription, and most aspects of the welfare state.
Protection of property and life needs grounding in
biblical law, according to Reconstructionism, or the
state set free from the restraint of God’s law will
take what it wishes at a whim. Accordingly,
Reconstructionists advocate biblically derived
measures
of restitution, a definite limit upon the
powers of taxation, and a gold standard or equivalent
fixed unit for currency.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

anyone too silly not to dismiss Ron Paul probably deserves a C-  on his algebra re-
test anyway.

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, November 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

@Matt Emmons - You are supposed to be studying!

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,
I take your point. All I can tell you is that you need to take Paul’s position in totality. Paul does acknowledge fraud, but says that our current system is not only incapable of stopping it, but actually encourages it. He writes that in a free society fraud will be dealt with, when it arises, but local law enforcement. I don’t know… It’s partly semantics: what you and many progressives think of as “capitalism” Paul would call corporatism (a polite term for fascism). Here’s something he wrote: “To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.”
The thing is, most of the derivatives and housing BS WAS “legal,” thanks to Greenspan, Clinton, Bush, etc.
That’s the problem that four more years of Obama won’t fix.
Also, while I was formulating an answer to your post I came across this really very funny caricature of Paul’s arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ELEwjVRxxGE

Watch it if you like rap.

Note: Paul doesn’t really argue that we adopt the gold standard. He argues that we allow competing currencies: gold, silver, other notes, in addition to dollars. Crazy, I know, but what we have is a FAILING SYSTEM. Radical ideas should be given some consideration. If you really read some of Paul’s essays with an open mind, I think you will find there is a lot of wisdom in the (real) conservative economic viewpoint that has been driven underground. It is news to me, honestly. I am a 35 y. o. Nader voter who would never in my wildest dreams have thought I’d ever note Republican. But classical capitalism, as Paul conceives it, is not about greed. For many Enlightenment thinkers, it was a path to liberty.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Re: By Mark, November 3 at 8:25 am t
(Unregistered commenter)

Mark wrote:
“Just returned form 4 weeks in China on business…some observations…

1) There is NO recession in China…let me repeat, THERE IS NO RECESSION in China…

2) They spend money like its going out of style…”
—————————————————————————

Mark,

What were you doing in China? Were you negotiating relocating one of your corporation manufacturing plants to China from USA and laying off all the workers who work in it in the USA??.
And now you are lecturing us about the “booming” Chinese economy!!.
GET REAL BUSTER!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

Re: Mark Emmons November 3

Your comment: “Paul agrees that capitalism needs to
be regulated,”

That is not the case.  He does not believe that
capitalism should be regulated.  From his website:
“Since the bailout bill passed, I have been
frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly
blaming the free market for our recent economic
problems and calling for more regulation. In fact,
further regulation can only make things worse.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-11-10/ron-paul-why-more-regulation-makes-things-worse/

“Is your drinking water safe, just because the
government says it is? Is the internet going to
magically become safer for your children if the
government approves regulations on it? I would
caution any parent against believing this would be
the case. Nothing should take the place of your own
common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so
much better than a centrally planned economy.”

According to Paul’s logic we shouldn’t have laws that say murder is against the law because some people will still kill you.  According to Paul’s logic the “free market” will give us some fictional nirvana.  But wait a minute, that FREE FOR ALL on Wall Street should have been perfectly corrected by his logic of supposed market corrections.  BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

Additionally at this same link Paul claims, “Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return,” So even as he claims it would work (which it didn’t, BECAUSE of lax regulations), he claims it was all LEGAL (even though we know at least a million acts of fraud were committed!) in this way he attempts to qualify ALL THAT ILLEGALITY which is exactly what his Republican counterparts are advocating, in fact endorsing.  Additionally he shifts the BLAME to the individual by claiming, “Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence” instead of to the guilty parties, which were the Banks and Wall Street.

According to Paul’s logic, EVERYONE should know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING so that they can’t be taken advantage of by multi-billion dollar global corporations.  Are you serious…?  He absolutely stands on the side of corporations by his “blaming the victim” mentality while at the same time completely exonerating the perpetrator which in this case is Wall Street and the banks by claiming it was all LEGAL!

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, November 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

@JTraveller, November 3
Thank you for bringing up the topic of Homeland Dept, it seems to escape notice that CheneyBush (the small ‘guhmint’(government) people created the biggest department so far, with oversight over all state agencies, local regulations and empowered by partial suspension of the US Constitution. This from those who complain that the current admin is ‘socialist’. If our whole population were better educated our leaders would have to be so also…...
Nevermind.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,
I don’t know where you’re getting your info. Paul is against Cheney’s wars, against the police state and the Patriot Act, against the drug war, against the bailouts, against the power of a unitary executive, and doesn’t get any money from the Kochs. His donors are truly grassroots. Look it up.
Paul agrees that capitalism needs to be regulated, but he proposes that the current system (EPA, FDA, etc.) is inherently corruptible, and would replace it with a stronger tort system. That is, if you injure someone, or their environment, you are liable. The current law is filled with loopholes and exceptions for big corps., who essentially own the regulating bodies, just as they own the thoroughly corrupted federal government.
Anyway, this is fun and interesting and I thank everyone for the debate. Unfortunately, I can’t procrastinate on the history paper I was supposed to be writing (while my Mom’s got the kids) any longer, but I’ll check back to this thread tomorrow morning. We disagree on some things, but I recognize that your ideals and advocacy are sincere and admirable. I hope we all find a way to work together and pull this society out of the deep deep trouble it’s in.
Regards,

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,
I don’t know where you’re getting your info. Paul is against Cheney’s wars, against the police state and the Patriot Act, against the drug war, against the bailouts, against the power of a unitary executive, and doesn’t get any money from the Kochs. His donors are truly grassroots. Look it up.
Paul agrees that capitalism needs to be regulated, but he proposes that the current system (EPA, FDA, etc.) is inherently corruptible, and would replace it with a stronger tort system. That is, if you injure someone, or their environment, you are liable. The current law is filled with loopholes and exceptions for big corps., who essentially own the regulating bodies, just as they own the thoroughly corrupted federal government.
Anyway, this is fun and interesting and I thank everyone for the debate. Unfortunately, I can’t procrastinate on the paper I was supposed to be writing (while my Mom’s got the kids:)) any longer, but I’ll check back to this thread tomorrow morning. We disagree on some things, but I recognize that your ideals and advocacy are sincere and admirable. I hope we all find a way to work together and pull this society out of the deep deep trouble it’s in.
Regards,

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Ronald, I’ve just finished reading the second article you linked to. I found it to be thoroughly convincing. I agree with the writer that the only compellimng reason t vote for a presidential candidate is “the ability of the President of the United States to stop wars and end the forward-deployed US military presence overseas. No candidate who advocates this with any seriousness will get past the first gate. If she does, I’ll break my promise and vote twice for her.”
Ron Paul is that candidate in this election, and though it unlikely anything will come of it, he will get my vote. I should also note that the author of that article expresses explicit sympathy with Paul’s positions (twice). He puts him in the same category as Kucinich. So do I (though I much prefer the Kuc, obviously).
As for the video, I watched it and agree that Paul is promoting the idea of life beginning at conception. That is too bad, I agree. But, like I said before, he is so right about so many other things that, on balance, a competition between him and Obama is not even close. In fact, I liked a lot of what he said on that video, which surprised me given that he was speaking to a monolithically Christian audience. I like how he said that we don’t need a king. And even the abortion question he used as a segue to the idea that the Vietnam War, and our current wars, are morally wrong.
I take exception to your comment “you don’t live in reality.” Grow up. There are other perspectives than yours.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons

Your comment: ”(What if the only alternative was
Cheney?) In this case, Paul is our best choice.”

No.  It would be the exact same thing. Voting for Paul
is exactly like voting for Cheney. They are one and the
same.  The Koch Brothers (BIG MONEY - HUGE MONEY) are
LIBERTARIANS of the same mold as Paul. Their views are
one and the same.

Report this

By YoungGringos, November 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

In the ‘ol days Rubin, Summers, Bernanke, Paulson, Greenspan and Geithner would be run out of town on a rail- or worse.
We’re far too civilized for that now.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons November 3

Your comment: “just an independent thinker who
takes a close and honest look at my choices”

Logic dictates that if you were TRULY an
“independent thinker” you would recognize AND address
how closely aligned Paul is with the EXTREMIST Republican
agenda.

As for contraception, you are wrong.  Paul SUPPORTS
the “life begins at conception” laws.  These laws do
OUTLAW contraception, among other medical procedures. So your comments appear disingenuous to put it NICELY.

” the “Life Begins at Conception” / “Mississippi
Personhood” amendment that Romney supports does not
only aim to ban abortion. Since any fertilized egg
would be considered a person, “a miscarriage would be
cause for a criminal investigation.” In addition, it
would indeed potentially outlaw certain forms of
birth control. So it would seem, Maddow continued,
that Romney doesn’t seem to fully understand the
amendment he professes to support.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-welcome-to-the-man-cave-where-rachel-maddow-will-teach-you-how-a-uterus-works/

“The “profoundly ambiguous” language of the
amendment will affect more than just birth control.
Because fertilization can be defined as either the
sperm’s penetration of the egg or, as Hoye suggests,
when the embryo is formed even before implantation in
the uterus, the amendment could ban “forms of birth
control, stem cell derivation and the destruction of
embryos created though in vitro fertilization
(IVF).”

thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/01/358658/personhood-usa-confirms-that-mississippi-abortion-ban-would-outlaw-birth-control-pills/

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,
The “BIG MONEY” you mention is actually behind politicians like Obama and Romney. Look at the donations! Bankers LOVE Obama! In fact, if by some miracle a politician with Paul’s libertarian platform were to be elected, I would expect BIG MONEY to have him killed. I hesitate to mention that last point, because of the ease with which some of you toss around epithets like “insane,” but I am trying to be honest here.

Look, Ronald, “Leefeller,” and “Outraged,” I am sympathetic to your positions and I give them serious consideration. I will even read the second link you provided Ronald. I hope you will do me the same courtesy.

I am not a Ron Paul sycophant, and I disagree with him in some matters. But I do feel confident that his policies would reflect my ideals far more than Obama’s (or Clinton’s or Geithner’s) do. I would amputate a limb before I’d veer vote for a guy like Romney or Perry, but I suppose it’s all relative, isn’t it. (What if the only alternative was Cheney?) In this case, Paul is our best choice.

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, November 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

hard time making a case Ron Paul’s *constitution* is NOT a theocracy (sorry for
the typo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4EbCis-Zuc

reiterating ‘nutjobism’

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, November 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Just for you Matt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4EbCis-Zuc

If you’d actually address Ron Paul’s ‘nutjobism’ it’d be hard to make a case his
*constitution* is a theocracy

Nuff said, you don’t live in reality

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

A lot of invective and ad hominem going on here.

-No, I don’t support war, Christan or otherwise. Neither does Ron Paul.

-I agree, Rand Paul seems like a real dick.

-I DO support public ed., but think that, like many govt. functions it would be more efficiently and democratically (and Constitutianally!) administered by the states.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Ronald,
my first reply was to “leefeller”. Sorry for the confusion.

Outraged,
I am not a Republican hack, just an independent thinker who takes a close and honest look at my choices; Ron Paul doesn’t want to outlaw contraception. If you think his policies line up with those of any of the other Republican candidates, you are sorely mistaken.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

Ronald, thanks for the links. I read the first one and found it to be well written, and from a viewpoint I’m sympathetic to. But the critique of Paul is poorly argued. I feel that were I to meet with the author, he and I would agree about most things, but on this one, no. He makes the mistake of condemning Paul through guilt by association. Yes, Paul is a Christian, and yes, he “rubs elbows,” with many unsavory folks, Ralph Reed being a prime example. But the choice (if we make it happen) would not be between Ron Paul and [whoever your hero is]. It would be between Paul and Obama, whose associates are every bit as unappealing as Paul’s, and perhaps more so for their hypocrisies. Further, I don’t agree with the writer’s historical analysis. I’m not a Christian, but Paul is, or claims to be. So does Obama. As to the Christan heritage of the nation, it is undeniable. The Treaty of Tripoli, commonly appealed to by persons of our persuasion, proves very little. It was a diplomatic document created with the intention of mollifying the Muslims it was written for. Many founders were deist, but most were Christian, as far as I can tell, and certainly most Americans of that generation were. The Second Great Awakening in the 1800s radically Christianized the nation, unfortunately… but this all seems beside the point. Jefferson believed in separation of church and state. So do I. So does Ron Paul. As for his gold investments, the man is a capitalist. Do I wish he invested instead in renewable energy, or some other great progressive cause? Sure, but at least he’s not a murderer, like Obama, Bush, and the rest of the neoconservative/neoliberal ruling elite.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons

Your comment: “Paul wants to restore the concept
of federalism as it is laid out in the Constitution.
While that would probably lead to quite a few
regressive policies in “red” states (including where
I live, in Colorado) it would also make the
government more responsive to democratic involvement
(those policies would be enacted in places where the
majority WANTS them),”

No..No…No…...and NO!  That is not what would
happen.  All that would happen is the BIG MONEY
behind people like Paul ( and all the Nut Job
Republicans) would descend upon the states as we see
in Wisconsin and Ohio and gobble up the more modest
amount of funds states have to fight them.

Paul as well as his son Rand are extremist NUTJOBS of the worst kind.

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, November 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

The real Ron Paul should give any sane person hives

http://subversify.com/2011/09/02/ron-paul-fantasy-fallacy-and-foible/

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Matt, there’s no separating the insane from the real with Ron Paul and there’s
absolutely nothing to sane about thinking that he should be a candidate for the
presidency.

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, November 3, 2011 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Matt, you did not have time to read (before your reply)

So, you approve of “just Christian War” and doing away with public schools in favor
of church and religious home schools (and strip mining the planet for ‘hard
currency’) ?

Like I’d heard a Black woman once say “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”

Dream on dude lol

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Re: Matt Emmons November 3

Your comment: ” I’ve registered Republican,”

You’ve got to be kidding me….? It is OBVIOUS that you
are a Republican hack.  If Ron Paul were the only one
on the ticket I’d vote for the neighbors dog!  Paul is
in lock step with the extremist Republicans - in fact,
he INVENTED it.  His history stinks to high heaven. 
BTW, Ron Paul’s pro-life stance would OUTLAW
contraception.  He’s a verifiable whack job, PERIOD.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

You need to read! Paul would NOT CUT S.S. or Medicare in his budget. Obviously, his vision is of an America in which states and local communities are prosperous and organized enough to provide those services on their own, but Paul explicitly recognizes the need for those programs. You know who’s going to cut Medicare and Social Security? Obama and the Democrats!

Don’t get me wrong. I’d rather see Kucinich in the office that Paul, but that is truly not an option.

As to the abortion issue. I agree that Paul’s personal take on that one is a little behind the times, but I don’t think Paul is advocating for federal regulation of abortion, as you suggest. Just the opposite, in fact. Paul wants to restore the concept of federalism as it is laid out in the Constitution. While that would probably lead to quite a few regressive policies in “red” states (including where I live, in Colorado) it would also make the government more responsive to democratic involvement (those policies would be enacted in places where the majority WANTS them), and less likely to engage in imperialistic atrocities overseas. Obama is a war criminal.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot in 2012, you know that, Ron Paul knows that and I know that! 

The simple fact Ron Paul does not believe in regulations, unless it is to control a women’s right to choose seems to be a tad bit of hypocrisy to me.

If I have to choose between Ron Paul and Obama, I will go with Obama, just not as enthusiastically as last time.

The Republicans want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, why would anyone vote for Repulcians, unless they are the 1 percent?

Again, I would like a selection, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, November 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

I cannot fathom voting for Obama again. I went door to door last time, and even single-handedly swung my little district his way (and away from Clinton) at the Dem caucus in Issaquah, WA, in 08. I had my doubts, and I knew better, but still, I cried a little when he was elected. It was such a good feeling to see a black person elected to the office.
  I was a sucker. Now, chastened, I’ve registered Republican, and I plan to attend the caucus here in Colorado and sway a few people to Ron Paul if I can. He’s the only candidate, including Obama, who addresses the issues people are bringing up on this board. I know some of his positions are hard to swallow, but given the alternatives… Paul wants to end the wars, end the corruption, end the police state, and he has been consistent on these positions for decades. Sure, socialism would be nice, but maybe we’re not ready yet. We are making a leap that Marx would have recognized as unobtainable. First we need to see if we can create an actual prosperous free-market that values liberty and peace. Instead we have handed our political power over to a bunch of crooks and thugs. We need to take it back. I’m not sure whether voting will do that or not, but if you do intend to vote, please give consideration to Paul’s platform. You’ll have to read it for yourself, because, to th eextent that he is covered at all, Paul’s platform is not accurately depicted in the media (though Scheer, of course, gives him a fair shake). Don’t believe the hype. Paul is WAY better than Obama.

Report this

By Textynn, November 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Monkeys couldn’t have done a more incompetent, indifferent-to-people job than these so called masters of the universe.  Who in their right mind could think that a group needing a 16 TRILLION dollar bailout did anything right what so ever.  It’s ridiculous.

Bernie Sanders on investigating the Fed:
“As a result of these GAO reports, we learned that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to every major financial institution in the country as well as a number of corporations, wealthy individuals and central banks throughout the world.”
http://michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/veil-secrecy-fed-has-been-lifted-now-its-time-change

Report this

By balkas, November 3, 2011 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

i do not think one can split u.s governance [the system,
system of rule, americanism, the american way, or
whatever one wants to call it: THE DREADFUL IT] in two.
nor can one split supremacism—on which american way
of life rests upon—into to different supremacisms or
ideologies.

judiciary, cia/fbi, army/police echelons, large
shareholders, bankers, congress, MSM, W.H., ‘educators’,
sacerdotal class [islamic, christian, buddhists, hindi,
mosheic] think eggzactly the same.

you take rubin to court, you take this ‘elite’ to court: about
10-2o mn people. who hold all the power; includes who
faces courts or goes to jail. tnx

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, November 3, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Dear BrooklynDame,

Just a grammatical quibble.  In this context crystal
ball
should be plural, don’t ya know.

All the best.

Zing

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, November 3, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

I worked at a company where the CEO allegedly embezzled a quarter of a
million dollars.  The company let him go quietly, without prosecution,
because exposing him would have been embarrassing. That CEO is still
out there, slicker than owl shit, running and ruining companies.

Hopefully, the OWS movement will change attitudes, and the thieves and
swindlers posing as businessmen and economic advisers will one day
receive their just rewards. 


Give ‘em hell, ardee. 


Leefeller,

One small edit: malignant assholes are the words you’re looking
for in the following sentence:  “Occupy Wall Street is a beacon of
light exposing the mooning rear ends of the system.” See what I mean?  Reads better, huh?


Jane,

Will you marry me?  The regulars hear can attest that I’m with you. 
My suggestion is we break up the corporate television media into
several, small, individually owned corporations. For example, we break
up FOX News into a single company. No other company owns it. It does
not own any other companies.  Rupert Murdoch can own it, but that’s
all he can own, which means he will not want it.  Small companies
owning news outlets would put journalists back in charge of running
the news. Right now MBAs are running the newsrooms and they suck at
it.   


Mr. Cyr,

The more I read of you, the more I like.  Here’s to a victorious
third-party at local, state and national levels!


Billy Pilgrim,

Don’t be surprised if you do find yourself donating to a third-party
soon enough.  “Change is only proportional to the amount of force
which is put into it,” (Robert Fripp, The League of Gentlemen)
and force is in abundant application at the moment.  The time is ripe
for an independent third-party. 


Mark,

I have book for you: When China Rules the WorldGame of
Thrones
it is not. It’s thick. It’s academic.  It’s awesome. Do
check it out.  I’m not sure I would fit well in China myself, but as
an economic power, China is likely to nail our balls to the wall. They
have dabbled with and rejected neoliberalism, rejected the whorish
boorish Milton Friedman economics that go with neoliberalism, and
rejected the watery fecal matter that the IMF and the World Bank
passes off as economic policy. China believes government should invest
in and own businesses.  Their system is corrupt, but less corrupt than
ours and doing better.  Plus, they’re not fighting wars all over the
goddman place like we are.  That helps. 


prisnersdilema,

Cool. Bringing Lao Tse into the picture is always a good thing. 


heterochromatic,

All the best in recuperating from your head injury.

To you all,

TruthDig is the best fucking blog on the whole goddamn World Wide Web,
and you are the reason.  I love being a part of this cybertown. 
Blessings and goodwill to all.

Report this
BrooklynDame's avatar

By BrooklynDame, November 3, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

Thirty years of deregulation and the taxpayer gets nothing for his trouble other
than banks in need of bailouts, financial products that very few can understand
with a PhD and a crystal ball, record profits for banks and, my favourite, more
bank employees tossed out on to the unemployment rolls.  Yup.  We got nothin’.
Sheesh!
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2011/10/another-big-bank-heist/

Report this

By JTraveller, November 3, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

The reason that likely none of them will go to prison - quite simply - is that own (bought and paid for) the Justice Dept, the Homeland Security Dept, and the US Supreme Court. Any other answer still boils down to this- because otherwise the US Supreme Court would have assumed control of the case on charges brought by the FBI, and no charges have even been filed.

  As far as the Dept of Homeland Security goes - I think the whole Dept is one big joke- a boondoggle set up by Bush and Cheney to reward campaign friends with very overpaid controlling positions. Before we HAD the Dept of Homeland Security “watchdogging” every high level police agency and crime lab - we had confidence in the FBI and even the CIA, now that the Dept of Homeland Security has stuck it’s label on everything, the component departments of law Enforcement and Investigation have seemed powerless and little remains of the confidence America used to have in them.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

that’s the spirit, Artsy!!!!!!

mindless gibberish is what’s called for in a world turned upside down and
confusing for so many.

http://youtu.be/pus6XF_qh38

Report this
Artsy's avatar

By Artsy, November 3, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

We should take all the money and stock The CitiBANKSTERS (and all the rest) stole and let the ##@^&(^)%$#@&( build a prison for themselves. Let them build it themselves in the hottest part of the Mexican desert in the summer using razor wire. Stick every single one of them in it without a trial, strip them of their clothes and water board them. After all that is what the good ole USA is all about these days. That is what we do to so called “war criminals” so why not these criminals? This is war and they are the facilitators. Take them down and never let them out or allow a lawyer or family contact.

Make sure that not one damn one of them ever makes another penny on Halliburton or other war generated stock. Elect Ron Paul.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Rubin didn’t “push through” the repeal…..it was voted through by a whole bunch
of people in Congress who ere voted into Congress by a really big bunch of
people.

And it was not the end of Glass-Steagall that’s the root of everything that went
wrong.


Scheer should be held accountable for giving bad advice about holding people
accountable for giving bad advice.

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, November 3, 2011 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

@ Mark, November 3 – One of the reasons China imprisons a much lower percentage of their population is that they execute more. I am not even sure the statistics on this count are public or factual. AND, they don’t waste several bullets on one prisoner; I understand that they execute the day after the trial, and use one bullet in one pistol held a few inches away. I also think the view of the high end mall you saw was very prejudicial – most Chinese today still live in (what we would call squalor) and it is one of the few ‘socialist’ countries that never provided free health care.
Please someone tell me if I am wrong.
A trotskyite friend of mine has a self designed motto: “Less talking, more burning down!”

Report this

By ardee, November 3, 2011 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Billy Pilgrim notes:

“The only way I will ever donate money again would be to form a third party; a party that does not accept donations from any corporate entity, any union, any lobbyist, etc. I’m pretty confident that said donation will not be forthcoming any time soon.”

The Green Party refuses any and all contributions from corporations and am unaware of any received from lobbyists or unions. Perhaps you might join said party and help insure that those three entities are excluded.

C’mon down Billy.

Report this

By ardee, November 3, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

“And I’m sure I’ll hear from all the Amnesty people and their Human Rights record…mind your business, make money and you will do very well in China…”

So, Mark, is that all that matters to you?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Leefeller—There was actually a great deal of violence around Gandhi’s movement, just as there was around the American Civil Rights movement.  Both movements had authoritarian core groups which partially served to exclude paid and voluntary provocateurs and saboteurs, of which there were plenty.  However, both movements, and their leaders, have now entered the realms of hagiography, so unless we engage in detailed study we do not hear of the rough spots.  The Occupations are trying to do something different, and due to their open structure are vulnerable to provocateurs and other agents, to say nothing of privately violent and destructive.  However, they may find a way of excluding them.  Meanwhile the boss media and other rightists can be counted on to report every violent incident and to make up others when necessary, as they did about Gandhi and King and their movements.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 3, 2011 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Sorry, I went off topic.

Obama by selecting status quo people sold out to the majority of the populous who elected him, just like the Republicans in the Red States who attackd the people who voted for them. I do not know about you, but I see a trend here! Occupy Wall Street is the only voice I find speaks for me.

Maybe Obama will catch on before the next election,  I have my fingers crossed, lets face it the way Obama handled many things, he could be a Repulcian candidate, just not radical right?

I find much of Obama’s advisers disappointing, but I will probably vote for him, unless a populist candidate arrives on the scene and if someone says Nader forget it!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 3, 2011 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

How did Gaundi keep violent splinter groups from causing what happened in Oakland? Oakland is atypical of provocateurs and instigators who would ruin any other movement as well. Maybe protests should not go past 10 PM? Lets face it there are always going to be instigators like the people who did the same thing in Rome! Hell they could be sponsored by the opposition to the movement without even knowing it.

Oakland was a success and I find the violence completely unacceptable and they the perpetrators should be held accountable and pay for what they did.
Being drunk is no excuse!

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, November 3, 2011 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

Diana-Staying home in 2012 will “send a message” and put the republicans
back in charge?  Who is there now?  Remember the “super-majority” the dim-
ocrats had, and what they did with it?  Save the 1% before anything else and at
any cost.  Run Bob Dole’s unacceptable health care “reform” through the
Heritage Foundation to make sure its not to progressive, assure Pharma and
the health care industry their profits would not be touched, only enhanced. 
Convert the Bush tax cuts for the rich to the Obama tax cuts for the rich. 
Ignore progressive voters because, “where else are they going to go”.  A vote to
re-elect Pres. Wall Street Puppet is a vote for the status quo.  Where do you
think he plans on raising his $1 billion campaign fund, the repeated fiction of
“millions of $25 dollar donors on the internet” that he promptly ignores? 
Obamanation embodies and defines the problem in this country as much as
Boehner, McConnell, Romney et. al. Remember, “Hope and Change you can
believe in has as much relevance as “tastes great, less filling”.  The actual quote
butchered by the last President (the one who the current president is enhancing
virtually all of his policies is, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice,
shame on me”.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 3, 2011 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

The situation now is Obama’s call.  If he doesn’t get
rid of Geithner he won’t be reelected.  I won’t vote
for him if he doesn’t, and I am not alone.  For one
simple reason, it truly won’t matter who’s in because
the result will be the same.  Not to add insult to
injury but check out this story from Crooks and
Liars:
” It all boils down to Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner. It is apparent that Geithner believes the
only thing that matters in terms of fixing the
economy is to keep the big banks in good financial
shape, which is ironic given that in public he claims
that everything is fine with the banking sector now.
Given the mistakes some of these big banks made in
the housing bubble era, keeping some of them afloat
has been a heavy lift, but Geithner is determined to
keep these banks whole. If that means massive
bailouts, that’s the price we have to pay. If that
means 10,000,000 foreclosures and 25 percent or more
homeowners underwater, that’s okay too. If it means
slow-walking resolution authority for Citibank in
spite of the President’s orders to take it over and
start to sell off its assets, okay. If it means
continued 9 percent unemployment, it’s what we have
to do. And if it means waiving legal liability for
1 million counts of perjury and all kinds of other
fraud,
whatever.

The economics of this are just plain wrong: taking
over a zombie bank like Bank of America rather than
letting it bleed us dry, and forcing the writedown of
underwater mortgages, would do far more for the real
economy than keeping the big banks’ profit machine
humming.”

http://crooksandliars.com/mike-lux/worst-deal-hey-could-cut

A good article. It shows the strong-arming by Obama administration appointees to the state Attorney Generals who’re attempting to bring some justice to the situation.  If I were Obama (assuming he wants to be reelected) I would change course and FAST.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook