Vigilance, Perseverance, Justice
Subscribe to feed
‹ Why I’m For the OKC Thunder • Time for a Little Music ›
June 19, 2012 in Uncategorized by Timbuk3 | 9 comments
What’s the difference between rMoney’s economic plan and Bush’s, and…
Tags: elections, Greed
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=8250
iconoclast_555 on June 20, 2012 at 3:29 am
Name your devil. Both parties and candidates receive corporate sponsorship, and corporate sponsors want to push a neoliberal economic agenda.
Goldman Sachs was high up on Obama’s list in 08, and we’ve had a Goldman Sachs presidency.
Log in to Reply
Timbuk3 on June 20, 2012 at 7:30 am
‘Name your devil.”
OK. I’ll name Mitt E. Sketch, who has taken an oath of fealty to Grover Norquist and who would happily end medicare by rubber-stamping the Paul Ryan budget plan to increase the wealth gap.
The Colbert Report Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Timbuk3 on June 20, 2012 at 8:52 am
“Name your devil.”
With an rMoney Presidency, PNAC and Blackwater rear their ugly heads again.
Seriously, what’s another couple of wars when we have Goldman Sachs to hate on?
iconoclast_555 on June 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“Seriously, what’s another couple of wars when we have Goldman Sachs to hate on?”
What’s the diff?
The wars profit some companies, the Goldman Sachs presidency profits others.
With wars you reduce unemployment and put otherwise “useless” (because of the horrible educational system) citizens to some “use”. With GS, you just empoverish everybody except the speculators.
I’m not sure if we are proles or serfs. Maybe that’s the real difference between parties – those who want to turn us into serfs and those who want to turn us into proles.
Timbuk3 on June 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm
“What’s the diff?”
Between war and anything else?
rMoney plans to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for tax breaks for him and his rich buddies, and is surrounding himself with advisers who want to invade (at least) Iran and (probably) Syria, and “What’s the diff?”
How about “the two biggest sources of misery in the US today are the unpaid for wars Bush started, and the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy”?
Not to mention rich people aren’t fighting those wars. They’re being fought by the poor and middle class who can’t find jobs because of the two unpaid for wars Bush started and the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.
iconoclast_555 on June 21, 2012 at 4:26 am
“Between war and anything else?”
I don’t see fewer wars now than before. We stuck to Dubya’s timetable for Iraq – not a day earlier – and now are killing people in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere. We still torture, albeit by proxy. We sabre-rattle the same as any other CFR admin. We’ve lost all of our post-Dubya credit and outside the US, Obama is just another same-ol (a disappointment after relatively high hopes). I don’t see a greater chance of Mit going to war with, say, Iran, than I see Obama doing the same.
The neocons are out, discredited. The CFR establishment is just as hawkish, and cuts across parties.
As for Dubya’s unpaid wars, tell me – who voted to give him authority?
Timbuk3 on June 21, 2012 at 7:20 am
“I don’t see fewer wars now than before.”
I see one less. A POTUS isn’t bound by a previous POTUS’s decisions, so “Dubya’s timetable for Iraq” and “fewer wars now” are both straw men. The question is, who will start more wars in the future. I’ll put my money on the spineless asshole who will be a rubber stamp for the worst of the worst right-wingers, who’s surrounded himself with PNAC foreign policy advisers.
“I don’t see a greater chance of Mit going to war with, say, Iran, than I see Obama doing the same.”
I vehemently disagree.
“The neocons are out, discredited.”
They’re not discredited with Mitt E. Sketch.
“The CFR establishment is just as hawkish”
No. They’re not.
“As for Dubya’s unpaid wars, tell me – who voted to give him authority?”
Every single Republican and a few Democrats, right before an election when the American people were ginned up for revenge. Nearly all of the Democrats, BTW, were from “red” states and have since lost their seats to teabaggers. So, of the people who are still in office, the honest answer to your question is, the Republicans. Or, alternately, “Cheney, Rumsfeld, and rMoney’s foreign policy advisers”, because I’ve never agreed that the authorization to use force was valid for going to war in Iraq.
BTW, does anyone else agree that rMoney swearing an oath of fealty to Grover Norquist is at least bothersome, if not outright treasonous?
iconoclast_555 on June 22, 2012 at 5:32 am
“I see one less.”
I guess if you count Yemen, Pakistan, etc. as just one (Terra!), you’re right.
“BTW, does anyone else agree that rMoney swearing an oath of fealty to Grover Norquist is at least bothersome, if not outright treasonous?”
Did you know that he’s a member of CFR?
82 House Dems voted for the war… and a majority of Senate Dems.
Timbuk3 on June 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
“82 House Dems voted for the war… and a majority of Senate Dems.”
And the vast majority of them are no longer in office.
Not true of the 100% of Republicans who voted for it.
The point being, rMoney (“Did you know that he’s a member of CFR?”) will be a rubber stamp for the war mongers.
Really, Alvy, this isn’t that hard. You say you’re tired of voting for “the worst lizard”, and I can at least understand that. But there IS a “worst lizard”, and it’s the lying asshole Mitt E. Sketch.
Do anything that helps him move into the WH, and you’ve helped to destroy the middle class for at least the rest of my life. Maybe longer.
Bush was the.worst.president.in.history. The dog torturer would make him look like a charming, brilliant leader. Name a difference between the vulture capitalist’s proposed agenda and Bush’s, and it’s likely to be even more heinous.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Powered by WordPress and Tarski