This is what's wrong with this country and becoming worse. We are now living in a welfare state, the one supported by big govt zealots like bubblebutt and vensh.
Schiff is right. Too bad he didn't slap some sense into that yakkity commie bit ch.
Personally I believe Nixon got "railroaded" because he was in fact at odds with the power structure...Also remember Nixon refused to exercise his right to a court challenge of the 1960 presidential election result which was clearly rigged in Cook County, Il. He did that out of respect for the office.
Otherwise you articulate the current situation in this country very well. America was founded on civil disobeidience to tyranny. The situation we have now is clearly not what the founding father had in mind when they exposed "liberty and justice for all". The problem is the current economic system is not even good for capitalism. If capitalism translates to opportunity for all...then long live capitalism...Capitalism can only thrive when both the the owner and the customer have money...Right now the problem is the customers are very short on money...If we can not get money down to them the system will continue to fail...Taxing the rich is the best current solution..
PS...Schiff is not a capitalist...If we were honest with ourselves..with the exception of those who option to protect their businesses most of us are really just gambling and calling "playing the market", "investing"...Schiff is a "financial advisor"...really not any different than a guy who puts out a tout sheet at the racetrack...He should be the last person anyone with a brain in their head's should listen to..
when you can discuss the very important points mentioned in my posts in logical matter instead of side stepping them and suggest they are not worthy of YOUR intelligent response...then i will be more than happy an answer ALL of your questions.
until then, do you real think by insulting someone,ignoring everything they said and then asking them all these question is smart and will get them to cooperate with you?
obviously if you had a good head on your shoulders with a sense of fairness and respect you wouldn't talk to others this way.
someone who does not respect himself and has a low self esteem, talks to others like you do.
please get some help...you need it.
good luck from mike.
You write volumes but miss the important points. If you were in my class C- at best. Like it or not the wealth in this country was generated by productive capitalism. There is no other factor other than the creation of wealth that correlates with social justice. The questions you should be asking is just what has happened that has contacted the productive sector and is causing the misery you are observing but don't understand. First ask yourself the honest question. Immense sums have been spent on poverty programs, aid directly to individuals and the direct subsidy of urban areas not only for infrastructure but operating expenses. Has poverty been alleviated, are families more likely to remain intact, has drug addiction and the debasement of children lessened?Are urban area better today than before the huge programs? The government has declared war on carbon sources. Have all the denial of permits, regulations and crony capitalism subsidies improved public health or accomplished anything significant? Has the resulting contraction of the economy contributed to the unemployment and misery? Have public service unions that represent mostly tenured state employees helped the government entities they serve? Or has the monumental tax increases necessary to fund the salaries pensions, and benefits further contracted the economy by forcing business to flee and home ownership less likely as property taxes soar. How do you justify a monopoly public education system that has received immense resources yet is mediocre at best? Mr. Obama, Mr. Emmanuel , Mr. Kennedy and many many others choose private excellent schools but the urban poor are herded into failing schools and have no choice. Do you perhaps see an opportunity here for real empowerment? And finally if you taxed billionaires such as Mr. Soros, Mr.Buffet,Mr. Gates, Mr. Jobs, and the rest at 100% and confiscated all their wealth, just how long do you think you could run the government? How much of the debt could be retired and how long could it be serviced? Finally after two generations of deficit spending, the debts accumulated and the results, where do you think all the continued deficit spending will lead? Answer those questions even from a leftist perspective, and intelligent people may take you seriously.
Now that hordes of Obama defenders are running around justifying the President’s due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki based on the mindset — our President targeted a Very Bad Terrorist, so no due process or disclosure of evidence was needed — the same question obviously arises: if there’s so much evidence showing that Awlaki was involved in plotting Terrorist attacks on the U.S. (as opposed merely to delivering anti-U.S. sermons protected by the First Amendment), isn’t that even more of a reason to have indicted him and charged him with crimes before killing him? Please watch this amazing video of ABC News‘ Jake Tapper persistently questioning a stonewalling, imperious White House spokesman Jay Carney about this issue; remember: he’s asking the White House what evidence justified the U.S Government’s targeting of its own citizen for assassination with no due process, and the White House is telling him: we have it in secret but don’t need to show anyone (via Robert P. Murphy):
That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want — including citizens — without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us. That was absolutely the principal justification offered by Bush followers for everything their Leader did — I know they’re Terrorists because My President said so, so no courts or evidence is required – and that is now exactly the mindset of Obama loyalists to justify what he does (back in December, 2005, I described that defense as the ”Very Bad People” justification for lawless, due-process-free acts).
That mentality — he’s a Terrorist because my Government said he’s one and I therefore don’t need evidence or trials to subject that evidence to scrutiny — also happens to be the purest definition of an authoritarian mentality, the exact opposite of the dynamic that was supposed to drive how the country functioned (Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution“). I trust My President and don’t need to see evidence or have due process is the slavish mentality against which Jefferson warned; it’s also one of the most pervasive ones in much of the American citizenry, which explains a lot.
the most ignorant claim justifying the Awlaki killing is that he committed “treason” and thus gave up citizenship; there’s this document called the “Constitution” that lays out the steps the Government is required to take before punishing a citizen for “treason” (“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court“); suffice to say, it’s not met by the President secretly declaring someone guilty backed up by leaked, anonymous accusations to the press;
“It’s interesting,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Friday’s daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a person’s citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out there’s no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. “An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case,” she said. “Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case.”
In other words: we wanted to strip Awlaki of his citizenship, but there’s no legal authority for us to do that, so we just went ahead and killed him. What a world apart from George Bush.
The bankers' blockade of WikiLeaks must end.....Whether you support WikiLeaks or not, the blockade by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and others is a sinister attack on free speech.
In December 2010 three of the world's biggest payment providers, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, cut off funding to WikiLeaks. Ten months later, Julian Assange has announced the whistleblowing site will suspend operations until the blockade is lifted – and warned WikiLeaks does not have the money to continue into 2012 at current levels of funding.
On the surface, it appears as if the bankers' blockade – encouraged by several US senators, including Joe Lieberman – may have come close to accomplishing its goal. WikiLeaks is, for now, silenced – though not before publishing the full cache of 251,000 diplomatic cables, and the files of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.
The banking blockade against WikiLeaks is one of the most sinister developments in recent years, and perhaps the most extreme example in a western democracy of extrajudicial actions aimed at stifling free speech – made all the worse by the public support of numerous people sitting in the US House of Representatives.
Payment companies representing more than 97% of the global market have shut off the funding taps between WikiLeaks and those who would donate to it. Unlike many of the country's leading corporations, WikiLeaks has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime at either state, federal, or international level.
When the Department of Justice mounted a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1998, the idea that payment companies might cut it off due to state disapproval would rightly have been seen as ludicrous and illiberal. Yet when payment companies do exactly this to WikiLeaks, who have never appeared in court opposite the US state, many tacitly accept the action.
Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are none-too-choosy about who they provide payment services for. Want to use your credit card to donate to the Ku Klux Klan? Go right ahead. Prefer to support the English Defence League? Paypal will happily sort you out. Prefer to give cash to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, who oppose the "radical homosexual agenda"? Feel free to use your Visa, Mastercard or Paypal.
Visa and Mastercard are already inescapable. As the world becomes ever-more digital, and cash continues its journey to obsolescence, they will become still more pervasive. If they are allowed to cut off payment to lawful organisations with whom they disagree, the US's first amendment, the European convention on human rights' article 10, and all other legal free speech protections become irrelevant.
Those who value free expression, whether they like WikiLeaks or loathe it, should hope it wins its current battle
Remarkably, Ford explicitly pointed to Nixon’s lofty status as a reason to exempt him from the accountability applied to ordinary Americans— a complete reversal and rejection of the central covenant of the American founding. Ford’s signature line—“Our long national nightmare is over”— put a heroic spin on the betrayal of the rule of law: we end the “nightmare” of high-level criminality by sweeping it under the rug, protecting the wrongdoers, and pretending their crimes never happened.
Thanks to Ford’s act, Nixon himself was shielded from the kind of punishment that, as a “law-and-order” Republican, he had devoted his career to imposing on ordinary Americans when they broke the law, no matter how petty the offense. Yet this grant of immunity to the nation’s most powerful figure was endlessly cast as a generous gift to the American public, which—we were repeatedly told— had been spared the agony, acrimony, and shame of seeing their leader held accountable for his crimes as any other citizen would be.
That dynamic expresses the underlying motive of the political and media classes’ general defense of elite immunity: by protecting the lawbreaking license for other powerful individuals, they strengthen a custom of which they might avail themselves if they too break the law and get caught. It is class-based, self- interested advocacy. That is why belief in this prerogative and the devotion to protecting it transcend political ideology, partisan affiliation, the supposed wall between political and media figures, and every other pretense of division within elite classes. It is in the interest of every member of the privileged political and financial class, regardless of role or position, to maintain the vitality of this immunity. And what we have seen over the last decade is the inevitable by-product of elite immunity: pervasive, limitless elite corruption and criminality.
As multiple episodes demonstrate, a belief that elite immunity is both necessary and justified became the prevailing ethos in the nation’s most influential circles. In countless instances over recent years, prominent political and media figures have insisted that serious crimes by the most powerful should be overlooked— either in the name of the common good, or in the name of a warped conception of fairness according to which those with the greatest power are the most entitled to deference and understanding.
This is what makes the contemporary form of American lawlessness new and unprecedented. It is now perfectly common, and perfectly acceptable, to openly advocate elite immunity. And this advocacy has had its intended effect: the United States has become a nation that does not apply the rule of law to its elite class, which is another way of saying that the United States does not apply the rule of law. . . .
If the threat of real punishment for criminality is removed, for many rational people there will be little incentive to abide by the law and much incentive to break it. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 15, explained why.
It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.
For the nation’s most powerful elites, the law has indeed been whittled down to “nothing more than advice or recommendation.” Although there have been episodes of unpunished elite malfeasance throughout American history, the explicit, systematic embrace of the notion that such malfeasance should be shielded from legal consequences begins with the Watergate scandal— one of the clearest cases of widespread, deliberate criminality at the highest level of the U.S. government.
By the scandal’s conclusion, few contested that not only Nixon’s top aides but Nixon himself had committed serious felonies— either in authorizing the break-in and related illegalities, or in obstructing the ensuing investigation. Nonetheless, Nixon was ultimately shielded from all legal consequences thanks to the pardon granted by his handpicked vice president, Gerald Ford— who, it was widely believed, secured his appointment by agreeing to protect Nixon from prosecution.
America’s two-tiered justice system – specifically, the way political and financial elites are now vested with virtually absolute immunity from the rule of law even when they are caught committing egregious crimes, while ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest and most merciless penal states even for trivial offenses.
As a result, law has been completely perverted from what it was intended to be – the guarantor of an equal playing field which would legitimize outcome inequalities – into its precise antithesis: a weapon used by the most powerful to protect their ill-gotten gains, strengthen their unearned prerogatives, and ensure ever-expanding opportunity inequality.
The past decade has witnessed the most severe crimes imaginable by political and financial elites: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, domestic spying perpetrated jointly by the government and the telecom industry without the warrants required by the criminal law, an aggressive war waged on another country that killed hundreds of thousands of people, massive financial fraud that came close to collapsing the world economy and which destroyed the economic security of tens of millions, and systematic foreclosure fraud that, by design, bombarded courts with fraudulent documents in order to seize homes without legal entitlement. These are not bad policies or mere immoral acts. They are plainly criminal, and yet – due to the precepts of elite immunity which were first explicitly embraced during Ford’s pardon of Nixon — none of those crimes has produced legal punishments.
By very stark contrast, ordinary Americans are imprisoned more easily, for longer periods of time, and in greater numbers than any nation on earth. New legal classes of non-persons with no rights have been created over the last decade as well. Thus, over the same four decades that elite immunity has taken hold, the nation — namely,the same elite class that has aggressively vested itself with the right to act with impunity — has resorted to ever more merciless punishment schemes for ordinary Americans and others who are marginalized who, for multiple reasons, have very few defenses when the state targets them for punishment. While being rich and powerful has always been an advantage in the judicial system (and in all other aspects of American life), our political culture has now explicitly renounced the concept of equality of law, and it is thus now unabashedly clear that who you are is far more important than what you do.
I say, just get the Fark out of my pockets.
Considering the realities, that there is no hope of that ever happening, then I expect those in government to stop grafting those funds.
Surely, social assistance is a necessity, but these Fascist have become the greatest Con-artist playing the masses with the ole' "Hook and Bait"
“Hope is such a bait, it covers any hook.”
Better they get out of my pockets because I know better where my funds can better be spent instead of being grafted by the politicals, the Professional Liars Lawyers, Physicians, Accountants and Corporates!
“I see the devil's hook, and yet cannot help nibbling at his bait”
Surely, Misappropriations is never an excuse, but if they must and they will remain in my pockets then I want to ensure that those funds go to the social benefits of the American commonwealth of the people and not to universities, hospitals and corporations, PAC's ect...
>>>Why do you and other "conservatives" keep defending usury?<<<
Where did you get the idea that I do? I've never ever mentioned this at all. This is just another wild a sss idea that has popped into your head based upon NOTHING.