Is President Obama insane?

[tcaudilllg]

Amid news that the economy has entered a 2nd recession.

The budget is being balanced through enormous government personnel cuts. The Congress has gone psychotic... there are signs of a Nazi-style takeover emerging from the Tea Party grassroots, focused on Muslims.

I look at this, and I can't help but think in a perverse sense this trial and tribulation is good for America. America has never tasted evil the way Europe has... but at the same time I know all too well the fact that the radical Right is the absolute essence of evil, and that these things come in cycles. The radical Right never truly learns... it is too stupid, too simple to ever understand the consequences of its actions. Nor does it really care, because all the radical right-winger really cares about are themselves and their progeny. (of course they are undermining the independence of their progeny through their inconseqentialism, but they have their hatred of coercive altruism for protection from that inconvenient fact).

[Krig the Viking]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

[Bardia]

You're an idiot if you can't see that the economic problems are due to politicians of both parties overspending for many decades.

[Begoner]

Amid news that the economy has entered a 2nd recession.

False: according to the most recent news reports, the American economy grew in the second quarter of this year, albeit slowly.

The budget is being balanced through enormous government personnel cuts.

Also false. The budget is far from being balanced, and balancing the budget is not currently on the table as far as the debt-ceiling debate is concerned. Moreover, the reduction in government expenditures being contemplated would be borne mostly by recipients of transfer payments rather than government employees.

The Congress has gone psychotic... there are signs of a Nazi-style takeover emerging from the Tea Party grassroots, focused on Muslims.

Long before they gained political power, the Nazis formed a militia that intimidated and assassinated political opponents; there are no signs that the Tea Party is behaving in a like manner. There are similarities between the two groups, but these similarities are rather tenuous and tend to be limited to their militaristic tendencies.

America has never tasted evil the way Europe has...

More Native Americans died due to the United States' genocidal policies than died in the Holocaust.

but at the same time I know all too well the fact that the radical Right is the absolute essence of evil

This is laughably hyperbolic; I will, however, agree that most conservatives I've met have tended to be downright nasty individuals.

The radical Right never truly learns... it is too stupid, too simple to ever understand the consequences of its actions.

This isn't necessarily the case; many American conservatives would welcome a dictatorship in America, and they would not be harmed by it. Lacking the capacity for independent thought, they like nothing better than unquestioningly following orders, and would take pride in doing so. Though their actions might lead to a police state, they not only anticipate this, but do so with excitement. Also, they take joy in seeing people suffer; it fits in with their sadistic world view. For example, they may believe that the wicked are being punished with suffering and that the virtuous are rewarded with joy. The religious notion of hell appeals to such people for similar reasons. In any event, while the consequences of their actions might be dire for the country as a whole, cruel, ignorant conservatives would benefit from them.

[Creepy-male]

Amid news that the economy has entered a 2nd recession.

The budget is being balanced through enormous government personnel cuts. The Congress has gone psychotic... there are signs of a Nazi-style takeover emerging from the Tea Party grassroots, focused on Muslims.

I look at this, and I can't help but think in a perverse sense this trial and tribulation is good for America. America has never tasted evil the way Europe has... but at the same time I know all too well the fact that the radical Right is the absolute essence of evil, and that these things come in cycles. The radical Right never truly learns... it is too stupid, too simple to ever understand the consequences of its actions. Nor does it really care, because all the radical right-winger really cares about are themselves and their progeny. (of course they are undermining the independence of their progeny through their inconseqentialism, but they have their hatred of coercive altruism for protection from that inconvenient fact).

My understanding of the issues are different, I think the Tea Party is mainly a grassroots organization of libertarians and republicans that want to restore power to the people.

In any society you always have the people and the superstructure. A grassroots movement is one that moves from the people to the superstructure, as opposed to one that moves from the superstructure to the people.

I don't think the Tea Party is evil. I think they are mislead and manipulated. The problem is all the narcissist right wing politicians in America have hitched a ride on the bandwagon true libertarians/republicans like Ron Paul have created recently in the political environment. These right wingers are trying to win over the working people who want a grassroots movement through propoganda, portraying liberals as elites and thus the source of the oppression superstructure in America (which in many case is an outright lie).

The real source of oppression is not in the government or private sector, its in a network, an iron triangle of industry/military/political influence termed the military industrial complex-- which Eisenhower warned about at the end of his presidency.

Many of these right wing political narcissists are actually media men and corporatists which are friendly to the military-industrial complex, and therefore don't really represent the interest of the people on the ground but the superstructure.

Anyways these well networked media neo-cons and corporatists have manipulated the movement by appealing to certain themes they can tap into concerning the movement. For example Christian/Down-Home/Folksy Values -- which they juxstapose against the big city liberal (remember the city folks are elitist businessmen with poor family values!). The pro-war, protect america and protect the unborns...... liberals are heartless sociopathic city slickers. The redistribution of wealth.... the private sector has your best interest, the liberals want to give your money to a bunch of poor people that don't deserve it (remember most of the working people have it tough, just struggling to stay above the lower class -- so they aren't sympathetic to drug addicts and so forth that choose not to work). Finally the idea "I'm one of you", my dad worked in a steel mill, these liberals are media men, writers, academics, and snooty elitists who talk and don't work.

Most of these are outright lies. While liberals tend to have more relaxed and progressive social views, they advocate social freedom, which is that you have your right to live life in a manner you feel is good and I have my right... they don't advocate attempting to invade suburbia and rural america with liberal values. Most conservatives will argue the liberal media attempts to try to persuade their kids to do non-wholesome things... but there is no liberal media, the media is driven by business industry and interfaces with military industrial complex through business. The real media flipflops on partisan views in order to create an interesting conflict, because conflict is drama, and drama sells, but it leaves our nation weak.

Second, liberals are not anti-war, they are for a smarter less interventionalist attitude towards relationships with foreign nations. Liberals tend to be more social critics and analysts not "warrior", but that criticism can help our country make smarter decisions, so that the actual warriors, people fighting the wars, don't have to die for needless causes. They aren't trying to hate soldiers, they are trying to get the decision makers to make smarter decisions. Hate towards soldiers is something produced from the media, war is a drama that once again sells.

Third, liberals don't want to redistribute wealth, they just want to dedicate income towards social services and they want to establish a progressive tax rate to prevent people from getting to big in wealth in relations to others. This means working people actually have less or the same amount of tax as under a republican agenda. Only the rich get larger taxes, which have steadily been declining since the 1950's. This isn't tax on capital or corporate investments, but on personal income. The problem is there are many loopholes to evade taxes by playing off personal expenses as "business investments" when you are that rich. Also liberals don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of money on social services, the modern liberal would rather dedicate resources intelligently to the homefront rather than spend it on crusades that are hasty and ineffective but strengthen the military-industrial complex and its interests.

Fourth and finally the liberals don't hold animosity towards the working men, on the contaire they would rather be the voice of these people if they will let them. They live a different life style and typical fulfill different social roles, but they aren't the enemies of them simply because they are different.

The real problem is people working the bipartisanship system to weaken the core of the nation in order to competitively rise through the ranks of the military-industrial complex and media in america in order to seize a "successful" life according to the narcissistic values of our vapid and materialist society.

The Tea Party are good people, just manipulated beyond belief, and best case scenario in 2-3 years they realize this and the trend shifts. Worst case scenario they become the instrument of neo-cons.

Edit: I should mention to be fair, that liberal polticians themselves tend to be weak and ineffective because they suck up too much to the military-industrial complex and media to be actually be effective. So really its both politicians -- both republicans and liberals that tend to suck, but for different reasons. Republicans are ballsy, pro-military industrial complex mainstream media narcissists who want to gain power and competitively push their way to a vapid materialistic success. Liberals are pussy-wipped ineffective tools of the media that can't fulfill their agenda because they worry too much about pleasing everyone all the time.

[Creepy-male]

You're an idiot if you can't see that the economic problems are due to politicians of both parties overspending for many decades.

Yea this is what they want you to believe, the fact is, almost every session they don't have enough money so they pass legislation to raise the limit or allow them to go over. This session they aren't because the right-wingers are trying to make a statement. By letting this happen now, they are associating a universal problem in america that's been steadily growing since the 1950's on a political party, so that they can gain power and fulfill their personal interest.

[Creepy-male]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

That's really debately, I find the key features of fascism are a totalarianistic state superstructure.

In some ways the corporatist sect of libertarians/republicans tend to advocate a totalarianistic view of the corporate world by seeking to weaken government and strengthen the private sector.

Obama's regime is much more attuned to the typical liberal course of action of sucking up to corporations and the media to accomplish things... which isn't really totalarianism, everyone talks about how ineffective obama's administration is but compares it to the nazis... obviously this is a logical contradiction, as how can you ineffectively oppress people?????? Can you name one physical course of action he has done which supports the case of a state totalarianism?

[tcaudilllg]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

The Tea Party isn't on Mitchell's chart. Its essence is mentioned only at the end of his book as "postmodern Populism". The Tea Party caucus in Congress is not representative of the real Tea Party, which has been brainwashed electorally by the ubiquitous Murdoch press machine.

I think you should read that book a little more carefully.

****** didn't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy... most paleoconservatives don't. You're right though that he did use their techniques a lot. Might it have been to control the left? It may well have reflected that he did in fact integrate the center-right Nationalists, who had a Communitarian MO, into the Nazi party. Perhaps he relied on them to keep the social peace. The matter deserves further investigation.

[Saberstorm]

Ohhh... Nazis

We don't need Nazi comparisons. We are not like 1930's Germany. The tea party is a libertarian movement that has gained strength by absorbing a feel for American distinctiveness, the Founding Fathers and such. They are libertarians without the pot.

They want natural market corrections. No bailouts. Why should I even explain this... that is not Nazi.

Go to Friesian.org and check out the articles on Political Economy. http://www.friesian.com/econ.htm

[Creepy-male]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

The Tea Party isn't on Mitchell's chart. Its essence is mentioned only at the end of his book as "postmodern Populism". The Tea Party caucus in Congress is not representative of the real Tea Party, which has been brainwashed electorally by the ubiquitous Murdoch press machine.

I think you should read that book a little more carefully.

****** didn't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy... most paleoconservatives don't. You're right though that he did use their techniques a lot. Might it have been to control the left? It may well have reflected that he did in fact integrate the center-right Nationalists, who had a Communitarian MO, into the Nazi party. Perhaps he relied on them to keep the social peace. The matter deserves further investigation.

From what I know when ****** rose to power germany had just gotten out of the WWI and was experiencing bad economic conditions. The basic premise of the national social movement (NAZIs) etc was that the private sector couldn't be counted on to restore conditions and that democracy had failed, instead they needed a powerful central government to rescue the economy that served the interest of the workers.

While this is similar to left wing policy in the regards of the government attempting to involve themselves with business, a few things should be noted.

1 - Roosevelt in the united states at the same time was undergoing poor economic conditions through the depression and was equally advocating the government to take charge over big business to help the working man... so associating this economic paradigm to something fascist and unamerican is a huge fallacy.

2 - 2nd fascism is about a totalarianistic state... in the liberal paradigm, there is not totalarianistic state.... one of the key features of nazism was the idea that "democracy" had failed the german people-- hence instead there should be a strong authoritarian state. Liberalism doesn't advocate a strong authoritarian state, it advocate government regulation for fair business practice through a democratic process. That's a key difference from nazism

3 - the association between liberals and nazis is mainly drawing upon emotional content. Most people hated the nazis because of the human rights atrocities of the holocaust and their imperialistic penchant to dominate all other societies of the world. These two aspects have made them a symbol for one of the most hated social paradigm in the modern era. When people compare things to the "nazis" they are attempting to associate all this emotional content to whatever they are comparing things to, but sometimes this emotional content doesn't follow logically. Most people aren't upset over the economic policies of the nazis, but their social and foreign policies... an imperialistic genocidal totalarianistic state.

[tcaudilllg]

What you fail to understand is that right-wing political dominance naturally devolves towards sociopathy/barbarity. (in the modern era, anyway)

Look it up for yourself: a grassroots movement is emerging against Sharia in the Tea Party. It's a stealth attack against Church/State seperation, using Muslims as the bait.

But really dude, do have any idea how many people are going to suffer because of this bill? I'm inclined to think you have serious attitudinal issues as a result of this.

[DirectorAbbie]

The budget is being balanced through enormous government personnel cuts.

I wish the government would balance the budget by paying themselves less.

[Raver]

Obama is just a sock puppet doing the bidding of those hidden behind the scenes who are pure evil, so he isn't insane at all as he's simply doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Ignore the left/right paradigm, it's just a way for the masses to fight each other as both parties are controlled by the elite.

[WVBRY]

I hope aerent confusing the radical right with the Nazis because the Nazis were a left wing party.

Besides, not to give out ecomonic opinions(a subject I know nothing about)here but I think that Obama's attempts to balance the budget are terrible for the economy. Bill Clinton left the economy in a stable state because the US national debt was in a terrible state. There seems to be a rule here: bad national budget, good economy; good national budget bad economy.

Ok enough talk about the economy its killing my libido.;p

[tcaudilllg]

Obama is just a sock puppet doing the bidding of those hidden behind the scenes who are pure evil, so he isn't insane at all as he's simply doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Ignore the left/right paradigm, it's just a way for the masses to fight each other as both parties are controlled by the elite.

Actually Trav I think combining dominant delta Si with a certain messianic flair + lack of perspective is enough to explain Obama's behavior.

[Krig the Viking]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

The Tea Party isn't on Mitchell's chart. Its essence is mentioned only at the end of his book as "postmodern Populism". The Tea Party caucus in Congress is not representative of the real Tea Party, which has been brainwashed electorally by the ubiquitous Murdoch press machine.

I think you should read that book a little more carefully.

****** didn't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy... most paleoconservatives don't. You're right though that he did use their techniques a lot. Might it have been to control the left? It may well have reflected that he did in fact integrate the center-right Nationalists, who had a Communitarian MO, into the Nazi party. Perhaps he relied on them to keep the social peace. The matter deserves further investigation.

Hahaha, are you seriously implying that ****** was a Paleoconservative? ******, history's most notorious Statist, the leader of a fascist government that instituted strict government control of basically every aspect of German society, is somehow a Paleoconservative, a political philosophy so deeply paranoid about government power that almost every use of it is viewed as some sinister conspiracy? The very idea that "most paleoconservatives don't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy" is actually the exact opposite of the whole point of Mitchell's book -- Paleocons loathe the Communitarian philosophy almost as much as they loathe Progressives.

Next you'll be trying to tell me that Stalin wasn't an extreme Progressive at all, but really a Libertarian Individualist.

One of us needs to read Mitchell's book a little more carefully, but it isn't me.

[Raver]

Obama is just a sock puppet doing the bidding of those hidden behind the scenes who are pure evil, so he isn't insane at all as he's simply doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Ignore the left/right paradigm, it's just a way for the masses to fight each other as both parties are controlled by the elite.

Actually Trav I think combining dominant delta Si with a certain messianic flair + lack of perspective is enough to explain Obama's behavior.

I thought Obama was ESI or EIE? Perhaps that messianic flair + lack of perspective is why he was chosen for the job.

[WVBRY]

Yeah, Obama is -ESI.

[Begoner]

Next you'll be trying to tell me that Stalin wasn't an extreme Progressive at all, but really a Libertarian Individualist.

One of us needs to read Mitchell's book a little more carefully, but it isn't me.

Mitchell's classification of political views strikes me as rather naive and unhelpful. According to him, the Tea Party, ******, and Stalin would all be neoconservatives (a term which, by the way, is meaningless outside of the United States). However, this is not very illuminating, as all have different philosophies of government.

The Tea Party is motivated primarily by greed and contempt for the poor; it is not in favor of a free market so much as it resents being taxed in order to support a public sector of the economy. However, it is in favor of a strong police state, apathetic towards individual rights, and so on. It wants there to be a gaping divide between the rich and the poor, with the poor being exploited by the state and the rich benefiting from their labor. Hence, per Mitchell's classification, the Tea Party is both pro-archy (by way of social stratification) and pro-kratos (using the state's power to maintain an inequitable system). It is also notable that they are in favor of militarism, which is a pro-kratos foreign policy orientation.

****** was motivated primarily by cultural and geopolitical concerns, not domestic ones: he wished for the German people to wield power in international affairs, and believed genocide was the best means of accomplishing this goal (with the American genocide of Native Americans serving as a model for him). Economically, he was a pragmatist: contrary to public opinion, he rarely interfered with private enterprise, did not engage in much domestic spending, and took whatever measures were appropriate to ensure that the military could grow in power (see The Wages of Destruction by Tooze for an economic account of ******'s regime). He was a fierce opponent of Communism and an admirer of the British, so he was hardly a leftist; on the other hand, he was willing to put his conservative leanings aside to get things done. Obviously, he enforced a strong police state at home and was ruthless abroad. He is probably the archetypal example of a neoconservative according to Mitchell's system, as he relied heavily upon hierarchies (racial ones, military ones, and so forth) and force.

Stalin was motivated mostly by gaining absolute control over the Soviet state, but it is possible that he also had some ideological convictions. However, he deviated wildly from communist strictures and alienated many true believers in communism (and, later, he executed them). For such a perspective, see The Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky. Stalin engaged in privatization, bureaucratization (i.e., creating more hierarchies), and many other measures that were deeply unappealing to the revolutionaries of 1917. In this respect, he was like ******: a pragmatist bent on aggrandizing his power at the expense of any real philosophical commitments. Also, since he used force extremely brazenly, he easily fits Mitchell's profile of a neoconservative.

[MisterNi]

Obama is just a sock puppet doing the bidding of those hidden behind the scenes who are pure evil, so he isn't insane at all as he's simply doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Ignore the left/right paradigm, it's just a way for the masses to fight each other as both parties are controlled by the elite.

Except that the elites on the certain elements on the Right want to keep everyone subjugated and economically enslaved through destroying the economy and keeping persistent fears about the economy.

The Left want to provide services that will benefit everyone, like Universal Healthcare and that makes those certain elements on the Right really angry because it's reducing their voting base by creating programs that would benefit the average American.

[tcaudilllg]

I hope aerent confusing the radical right with the Nazis because the Nazis were a left wing party.

Besides, not to give out ecomonic opinions(a subject I know nothing about)here but I think that Obama's attempts to balance the budget are terrible for the economy. Bill Clinton left the economy in a stable state because the US national debt was in a terrible state. There seems to be a rule here: bad national budget, good economy; good national budget bad economy.

Ok enough talk about the economy its killing my libido.;p

The Nazis were not a left-wing party. The Nazis destroyed the left-wing and absorbed all the right wing parties in the country. Read your history.

Clinton balanced the budget and reduced the debt, if I recall correctly.

[Raver]

Obama is just a sock puppet doing the bidding of those hidden behind the scenes who are pure evil, so he isn't insane at all as he's simply doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Ignore the left/right paradigm, it's just a way for the masses to fight each other as both parties are controlled by the elite.

Except that the elites on the certain elements on the Right want to keep everyone subjugated and economically enslaved through destroying the economy and keeping persistent fears about the economy.

The Left want to provide services that will benefit everyone, like Universal Healthcare and that makes those certain elements on the Right really angry because it's reducing their voting base by creating programs that would benefit the average American.

I don't think the elite really care what party is in power as they fund both parties. Maybe they'd prefer the right at the moment because it suits their needs, but in the future they could prefer the left. I agree with the point you're making, but I've kind of disconnected myself from politics as I find it's just a big charade.

[tcaudilllg]

New details on the debt deal: subsidized loans for grad students have been eliminated. Now only unsubsidized loans remain.

Brought to you by the Tea Party.

Now, how else do you think the Tea Party/Obama coalition means to tax you?

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah, Obama is -ESI.

Si-SLI. An ESI would have let the whole thing fall apart rather than accept increased inequality.

Forget it... you're not worth debating. You're nobody.

[tcaudilllg]

The Tea Party isn't on Mitchell's chart. Its essence is mentioned only at the end of his book as "postmodern Populism". The Tea Party caucus in Congress is not representative of the real Tea Party, which has been brainwashed electorally by the ubiquitous Murdoch press machine.

I think you should read that book a little more carefully.

****** didn't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy... most paleoconservatives don't. You're right though that he did use their techniques a lot. Might it have been to control the left? It may well have reflected that he did in fact integrate the center-right Nationalists, who had a Communitarian MO, into the Nazi party. Perhaps he relied on them to keep the social peace. The matter deserves further investigation.

Hahaha, are you seriously implying that ****** was a Paleoconservative? ******, history's most notorious Statist, the leader of a fascist government that instituted strict government control of basically every aspect of German society, is somehow a Paleoconservative, a political philosophy so deeply paranoid about government power that almost every use of it is viewed as some sinister conspiracy? The very idea that "most paleoconservatives don't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy" is actually the exact opposite of the whole point of Mitchell's book -- Paleocons loathe the Communitarian philosophy almost as much as they loathe Progressives.

Next you'll be trying to tell me that Stalin wasn't an extreme Progressive at all, but really a Libertarian Individualist.

One of us needs to read Mitchell's book a little more carefully, but it isn't me.

Communitarian = the Rebellion, Paleoconservative = the Galactic Empire.

The defining characteristic of a paleoconservative is the concept of definite boundary. Communitarians are the reverse: boundaries are illusory, and distract from the true collective identity. Consider McCain's comment in 2008 ("We are all Georgians now."). Communitarianism is the antithesis of racism. And if you disagree, cite from Mitchell's text. I have my copy at hand.

[NewBorn STAR]

Amid news that the economy has entered a 2nd recession.

The budget is being balanced through enormous government personnel cuts. The Congress has gone psychotic... there are signs of a Nazi-style takeover emerging from the Tea Party grassroots, focused on Muslims.

I look at this, and I can't help but think in a perverse sense this trial and tribulation is good for America. America has never tasted evil the way Europe has... but at the same time I know all too well the fact that the radical Right is the absolute essence of evil, and that these things come in cycles. The radical Right never truly learns... it is too stupid, too simple to ever understand the consequences of its actions. Nor does it really care, because all the radical right-winger really cares about are themselves and their progeny. (of course they are undermining the independence of their progeny through their inconseqentialism, but they have their hatred of coercive altruism for protection from that inconvenient fact).

Are you insane? I belong to the club and i have a talent at figuring others out and you are seeming like one. Well so are most who pay too much attention to politics. Politics are to be ignored its machine of death. Drowned babies, hate, sectarianism and fervent masturbation on the graves of the dead.

If you wish to be sucked down by that stream go ahead.

But there is the other pole. The pole of Joyous LIFE GIVING INSANITY. THE ONE THAT LOOKS PAST THE NOW.

and..





oh yeah i forgot, gotta go. its time for my daily tea with eternity. Bye bye




The end of the News of the Insane.


Next week we will have Tcaudillag having his yet another holy crusade on the sacred realm of 16 types against the SICK goverment at fault.

[MisterNi]

I don't think the elite really care what party is in power as they fund both parties. Maybe they'd prefer the right at the moment because it suits their needs, but in the future they could prefer the left. I agree with the point you're making, but I've kind of disconnected myself from politics as I find it's just a big charade.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I get the impression that you think everyone is only selfish about their own desires and don't care about the US. If anything, I would blame this on an inexperienced President who's had pretty severe problems on his hands from the start of his tenure or an Administration who's handcuffed the Prez too tightly rather than the elites suddenly not supporting the current Administration.

[Gilly]

Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.

Key word theoretically. You don't know this shit when you see it?

[Creepy-male]

I hope aerent confusing the radical right with the Nazis because the Nazis were a left wing party.

Besides, not to give out ecomonic opinions(a subject I know nothing about)here but I think that Obama's attempts to balance the budget are terrible for the economy. Bill Clinton left the economy in a stable state because the US national debt was in a terrible state. There seems to be a rule here: bad national budget, good economy; good national budget bad economy.

Ok enough talk about the economy its killing my libido.;p

actually I see nazism as extreme right wing policy, the origin of left and right wings come from the french national assembly in the 18th century when two parties met to discuss issues. Rebels against the established regime sat on the left and people for the established regime sat on the right.

The trouble with this is that ****** and the Nazis started out extremely left wing in the context of post WWI germany, rebelling against the establishment and coming up with radical ideas... they eventually came to then establish a totalarianistic state which was more right wing that sought to tap into nationalism and people's heritage, and was infalliably authoratarian.

Communism in russia and china kind of followed suit, starting with a revolution and evolving to authoritarian governments.

I think its hard to exactly say which one is right, you could really argue both cases, but usually the idea that nazis are right is basically just expressing the concept of a nationalistic authortarian state. People saying nazis are left is basically saying that nazism started as a revolution.

[Raver]

I don't think the elite really care what party is in power as they fund both parties. Maybe they'd prefer the right at the moment because it suits their needs, but in the future they could prefer the left. I agree with the point you're making, but I've kind of disconnected myself from politics as I find it's just a big charade.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I get the impression that you think everyone is only selfish about their own desires and don't care about the US. If anything, I would blame this on an inexperienced President who's had pretty severe problems on his hands from the start of his tenure or an Administration who's handcuffed the Prez too tightly rather than the elites suddenly not supporting the current Administration.

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

[Bardia]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

To solve this issue more power should be given back to the states so the central govt can't do as much. It's much easier to hold your state governor and other state elected officials accountable than the President. Also, the state will probably know what it needs better than the central govt.

[Raver]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

To solve this issue more power should be given back to the states so the central govt can't do as much. It's much easier to hold your state governor and other state elected officials accountable than the President. Also, the state will probably know what it needs better than the central govt.

So you're entailing that power should be distributed from the federal government to the state government? Perhaps that might work in theory, but in practice I think those state governments could be controlled easily by the elite as well.

[Gilly]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

To solve this issue more power should be given back to the states so the central govt can't do as much. It's much easier to hold your state governor and other state elected officials accountable than the President. Also, the state will probably know what it needs better than the central govt.

Lol this is what I've been telling people since I was 16

[Bardia]

To solve this issue more power should be given back to the states so the central govt can't do as much. It's much easier to hold your state governor and other state elected officials accountable than the President. Also, the state will probably know what it needs better than the central govt.

So you're entailing that power should be distributed from the federal government to the state government? Perhaps that might work in theory, but in practice I think those state governments could be controlled easily by the elite as well.

Maybe or maybe not. It would certainly be more difficult than controlling the central govt.

What do you suppose should be done?

[Raver]

So you're entailing that power should be distributed from the federal government to the state government? Perhaps that might work in theory, but in practice I think those state governments could be controlled easily by the elite as well.

Maybe or maybe not. It would certainly be more difficult than controlling the central govt.

What do you suppose should be done?

I see your point, it could be more difficult to control several state governments that one big federal government. Perhaps breaking it up even further and just having power distributed to only cities might work best.

[MisterNi]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

Well in the US, money talks...period. These elites you write of simply vote with their money which is why reformers on both sides of the party have been pushing so hard to limit campaign contributions and other forms of payola. If you want a more fair representation of your rights by politicians, then targeting campaign contributions would be a great start. That way politicians won't have already been bought and paid for even before they enter office and the sitting President could spend more time being president, rather than campaigning for election funding.

[Raver]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

Well in the US, money talks...period. These elites you write of simply vote with their money which is why reformers on both sides of the party have been pushing so hard to limit campaign contributions and other forms of payola. If you want a more fair representation of your rights by politicians, then targeting campaign contributions would be a great start. That way politicians won't have already been bought and paid for even before they enter office and the sitting President could spend more time being president, rather than campaigning for election funding.

[Bluenoir]

Perhaps the American government could save some money if they start winding down their war efforts in the middle east a bit.

[munenori2]

Hulu - The Colbert Report: The Word: With Great Power Comes No Responsibility@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.hulu.com/embed/TsVA_xJcElomMbtLbISSxw@@AMEPARAM@@TsVA_xJcElomMbtL bISSxw

[tcaudilllg]

Well not everyone, I'd say just the elite, the top 1,000 trillionaires controlling everything are selfish and don't care about the U.S. This is where we disagree, I don't really think the president really has any say on anything, he just does what he is told. I think the elites support the current administration as they put them in there to begin with. I know I probably sound like a conspiracy nut , but to me this makes more sense then believing we vote for a president that makes all the big decisions in the U.S. The president in my opinion is just the scapegoat on the surface to take all the heat from those working behind the scenes making the big decisions.

To solve this issue more power should be given back to the states so the central govt can't do as much. It's much easier to hold your state governor and other state elected officials accountable than the President. Also, the state will probably know what it needs better than the central govt.

ha ha ha ha move to that county in Arizona where Arpio reigns like a living god and that delusion will vanish fast. The closer to home power is, the more immediate danger you face.