Billy_T wrote:

WV,

You keep citing really smart folk. Alperovitz is an important public intellectual, and a great leftist. He used to teach at my alma mater, Maryland.

His ideas are very close to what we both want . . . a kind of left-anarchist decentralization of all power, out to the people, with the economy and the community fully democratized . . . federated to one another . . . cooperatively, in cooperation, not competition.

_____

It has nothing to do with the size of the landmass and America is a republic not a democracy.

Actually, bnw, we’re both. We’re a democratic republic, and we’ve managed, against great odds, to extend the democratic franchise close to “universal suffrage” over the centuries . . . but we still have a long, long way to go. The most important step along those lines is to democratize the workplace and make the economy itself fully democratic. Not via proxies or representatives. But directly democratic.

Capitalism is the anti-democratic economic system par excellence, so that will be quite the task and struggle as long as it’s in place. But struggle we must while it’s here, and overthrow it as soon as it’s humanly possible — replacing it with social justice and participatory democracy baked in from the start. Replace it with equality for all, equal rights for all, equal say, equal voice, equal value and equal share for all. We the people. By the people, for the people, no longer for plutocrats, oligarchs or oligopolies.

No, the USA is a republic.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Full Definition of republic
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

waterfield wrote:

This entire false flag discussion is idiotic. And you never convince idiots of anything-whether its grand conspiracies, gun control, or big foot.

False flags are essentially lies told mainly by government to the people. Selling the lie of the weapons of mass destruction to the american people for the invasion of Iraq qualifies with the BS nuclear materials from Africa and the aluminum cylinders etc. Now I was never convinced but Hildiot certainly was.

From, 53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

(27) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(28) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(34) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

(41) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government.).

(42) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(51) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

And now in the aftermath of the Dallas police killings Obama proposes all police to become federalized. Hitler did that too and named them the Gestapo.

TSRF wrote:

BNW stated in another thread that he had to attend a course where they told him to comply with cops to get his hide like a little girl carry permit. Good.

No not to get a conceal carry permit. Complying with the police is a no brainer as is being upfront with letting the officer know you have a permit to carry. The hide like a little girl when on the ground hoping the shooter runs out of ammo that is what you want. BTW CT is an open carry state too.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by bnw.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw,

Okay. Well, if I read in volumes, please explain why you made most of your post about “protecting stakeholders,” and not workers. If I misread you, please say specifically what I got wrong. Me misreading someone wouldn’t be the first time, and it won’t be the last. So I’m fine with being corrected.

I view workers under contract as stakeholders too.

Mackeyser wrote:

Ford isn’t before my time, so Carter’s fine. Nixon would be stretching it a smidge. LBJ is before my time.

I’m so lost. Are you saying that there should be no income tax on business because private individuals pay an income tax? And some of those private individuals invest in publicly held companies?

Also, I guess we agree that the bankruptcy laws are abused for monetary gain. They are MUCH more robust for corporations than for individuals now. But that’s not really the point. There’s no individual law or even a thousand laws or huge monolithic government that can stop avarice, which is the well font of all of this.

SHOULD we reform or even replace things like our bankruptcy laws and a host of other laws that govern how we see corporations, their legal standing and how they should be allowed to interact within markets, with each other, with legal persons, with the government and be held to account under the law? ABSOLUTELY!!! If you’re saying THAT, then I guess we agree. Otherwise, I’m still lost.

I brought up the two taxes as examples of what politicians can legislate, taxes so egregious as to defy belief. Therefore protecting stakeholders as those in the Hostess Cakes scam would be a step in the right direction.

I’m not sure you understand why I find the Hostess Cakes situation to be different. It is definitely not unique but everyone can understand Twinkies and such. OK for whatever reasons the company went bankrupt. Then the shysters retooled the company by selling the same products as before and now are looking at massive stock profits. They didn’t go into another type of business like say baking dog biscuits. They made the same product as before. They didn’t create anything new to do so. They simply screwed over the previous stakeholders. Thats why they bought the company in the first place. Same company same product just sleazier. Stakeholders should still be made whole. Labor under contract should be compensated too.

While avarice can never be eliminated the abuse of the law to satiate it doesn’t have to be.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by bnw.

Mackeyser wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

No I’m not. I’ve noticed too many times over the years where when the heat is being applied to the establishment that something else distracts the MSM to allow the roaches to return to their happy homes. In the case of Hildabeast this horrific crime will have her and her House of Representatives sit in disruptors again working to deny americans their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Okay, bnw. I appreciate your clarification. Our views on this issue couldn’t be farther apart.

It’s not that I think our government is incapable of false flag operations. LBJ did one to help ramp up the war in Vietnam, for instance. But you have to look at who benefits, who holds power, what the likely effects are, and weigh all of that with the risks of discovery.

Given that these shootings may well help Trump, rather than Clinton, it doesn’t at all make sense she would be involved. And the possible benefit to her of leaving the front page for a day or two hardly makes the risks worth it.

It’s similar to the reasoning of the 9/11 truthers. I had too many arguments with them at the time — which I now regret as a major waste of that time. The thing in that case is what possible benefit could it be for the government to blow itself up, along with a major center of capitalist power.

If war were the object, that could have been accomplished without any loss of American life prior to the invasion, or any loss of financial power, or government buildings and staff. Just rig up something IN Iraq, pin it on Saddam, and bam!! War fever!

Seriously, this is Alex Jones territory, and he’s easily one of America’s most despicable people, along with being a sociopath.

Well we both have our opinions. Regarding 9/11 Truth, something caused molten steel to pour out of those buildings and within the dust generated from the destruction of those buildings were the unmistakable trace of thermite. More than enough reason to immediately destroy the crime scene and ignore health and safety laws in order to destroy that crime scene and to hell with the cleanup workers health. USA! USA! USA! USA!

I’m a former network engineer. I went to Lehigh. I still keep up on all sorts of science and engineering in all fields because it interests me.

The original explanations for why the towers fell were bullshit. I’ll grant you that, especially the original government explanations. They lacked even basic scientific credulity. It’s why even on this board with this crew, I said I had doubts because the science didn’t match what I had seen. Then the engineering dept at Purdue demonstrated the exact conditions including why there would be “possible thermite residue”. The Twin Towers (I’ll be brief because I REALLY don’t want to go into it and won’t be relitigating this) were built like a soda can. It had almost no internal support other than the elevator shafts. The ENTIRE support was based on the exoskeleton, a unique design for a skyscraper. Moreover, it allowed for zero supporting walls and that’s why all the traders liked to be in there because they could have an entire open floor. You can see that in the movie Wall Street. The jet fuel didn’t melt the internal supports, but weakened them which the UL underwritten steel would weaken within the burn temperature of jet fuel. If you look at pics taken just before the collapse, the external structure was buckling outward significantly. Once the initial floor collapsed, the pressure of that collapse created a pressure wave that from the outside looked like a set of controlled explosives. If you want to experience this phenomenon, stand on a soda can with one foot, then reach down and tap the edges with both fingers at the same time. Your weight coupled with the deflection will cause the aluminum to fail and the soda can will crush and you’ll fall the six inches at basically the speed of gravity. It’s how we used to crush soda cans for fun when the kids were little and how I used to teach the kids various aspects of science (gravity, structural integrity, deflection, etc).

The issue with building 7 is less resolved because other buildings in the same radius while sustaining significant damage did not have a massive failure as building 7 did and building 7 wasn’t of the same construction type as the two towers.

I will agree that the lack of forensic analysis on the remains of the buildings was unconscionable and only fuels conspiracy theories.

However, as we saw time and again with the Bush Administration, rather than complicated conspiracies, they were rarely capable of simple incompetencies. Can’t have both.

None of that explains molten steel pouring from the towers before they fell. I was watching live when a reporter on the scene said that emergency responders told him to get back because building 7 was going to blow or something like that. Hopefully that can be found on Youtube. The demise of Building 7 was also reported 20 minutes before it happened on the BBC.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

It may well have been false but the officers responded under that assumption and found the guy at the scene matching the call and the guy did have a gun. Don’t resist arrest. That is the simple lesson.

The officers shot a guy they had pinned on the ground.

There is no narrative that can excuse that.

And near as we know he didn’t resist. I see a guy pinned on the ground getting shot in the chest. I don’t feel the need to make excuses for that. It should never happen.

How about “don’t shoot guys you have pinned on the ground.”

I am not very tolerant of excuse making for that.

No excuses. DON’T RESIST ARREST! The guy was resisting arrest from the very beginning. He was not following their instructions. Even when on the ground he kept struggling . What that video doesn’t show is his hands. And this in the context of the officers having been alerted to his having a gun! DON’T RESIST ARREST!

You know I am not buying that stuff.

He wasn’t resisting, he had been subdued.

Unless you believe in summary execution, there is no freaking excuse for the cops acting like that at that point.

And you will get nowhere trying to push the same point. I don’t buy it now and never will.

If nothing else, it means the police are so poorly trained they can’t make distinctions.

And we are repeating ourselves in pure “agree to disagree” territory. Take that into account if you insist on trying to push your point, at least with me anyway.

…

He was NOT subdued. He was on the ground resisting arrest. His hands were not cuffed. You should ask your local law enforcement if someone on the ground resisting arrest without their hands being cuffed if they consider that suspect as subdued.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

What you say about republicans you could say about democrats too. So why don’t you?

No I don’t believe the official story of 9/11. Why would anyone? Look at the aftermath. Who gained power? The american people? NO. The US government, YES.

—————–
bnw, all the leftists on here trash the Democrats non-stop.

Sorry but have to call BS on that. Case in point would be appointees to the US Supreme Court. Other issues as well. The liberal cheerleading if not bias is far from hidden. Democrats overwhelmingly get the soft serve here. Doesn’t matter to me since I get an opportunity to hear another view and perhaps learn something. Trump will be the first republican I’ve ever voted for president.

zn wrote:

It may well have been false but the officers responded under that assumption and found the guy at the scene matching the call and the guy did have a gun. Don’t resist arrest. That is the simple lesson.

The officers shot a guy they had pinned on the ground.

There is no narrative that can excuse that.

And near as we know he didn’t resist. I see a guy pinned on the ground getting shot in the chest. I don’t feel the need to make excuses for that. It should never happen.

How about “don’t shoot guys you have pinned on the ground.”

I am not very tolerant of excuse making for that.

No excuses. DON’T RESIST ARREST! The guy was resisting arrest from the very beginning. He was not following their instructions. Even when on the ground he kept struggling . What that video doesn’t show is his hands. And this in the context of the officers having been alerted to his having a gun! DON’T RESIST ARREST!

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

I want to re-stress the obvious fact that both men were legally carrying firearms and both were killed for it.

The one guy was a felon with multiple offenses including a sex offense. So if he was carrying my bet is that he was doing so illegally.

First, someone’s history makes no bloody difference in how they ought to be treated by law enforcement, at least in terms of whether they bloody shoot him on the spot when he was clearly not resisting. And besides the officers had no idea who he was or what he had done when they first encountered him.

Not true. Police were responding to a report of a guy brandishing a gun.

Which, according to the guy who owns the store he was selling in front of, was false. Kind of like saying he was convicted of a “sex offense.”

And none of which justifies shooting the man.

It may well have been false but the officers responded under that assumption and found the guy at the scene matching the call and the guy did have a gun. Don’t resist arrest. That is the simple lesson.

Aw but how else would Marc Rich afford his pardon from Bill Clinton?

InvaderRam wrote:

we’re all a big fat failure.

I can definitely miss a few meals and be the better for it.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

How convenient. Hildabeast no longer leads the news.

See to you, Trump is innocent of every charge and Hillary guilty of all. It’s highly partisan thinking. So that already colors your worldview. To me, both are guilty of many charges. So in my case, I was actually thinking of St. Paul and Dallas when those things happened. I would never be either a devoted Dem or a devoted Rep partisan.

Btw I have no idea what “false flag” means.

So if you are arguing that Hildabeast still leads the news, well you’re wrong. I don’t get where the rest of your post was meant to go.

False Flag as per Wikipedia- The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.[1]

It is beyond ridiculous.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

I want to re-stress the obvious fact that both men were legally carrying firearms and both were killed for it.

The one guy was a felon with multiple offenses including a sex offense. So if he was carrying my bet is that he was doing so illegally.

First, someone’s history makes no bloody difference in how they ought to be treated by law enforcement, at least in terms of whether they bloody shoot him on the spot when he was clearly not resisting. And besides the officers had no idea who he was or what he had done when they first encountered him.

Not true. Police were responding to a report of a guy brandishing a gun.