• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 308 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
redtreviso said:
""Before the landmark Citizens' United ruling, the kind of corporate propaganda Koch Industries is using wouldn't have been legal.
April 23, 2011 | The following article first appeared on the Nation.com.

On the eve of the November midterm elections, Koch Industries sent an urgent letter to most of its 50,000 employees advising them whom to vote for and warning them about the dire consequences to their families, their jobs and their country should they choose to vote otherwise.

The Nation obtained the Koch Industries election packet for Washington State—which included a cover letter from its president and COO, David Robertson; a list of Koch-endorsed state and federal candidates; and an issue of the company newsletter, Discovery, full of alarmist right-wing propaganda.

Legal experts interviewed for this story called the blatant corporate politicking highly unusual, although no longer skirting the edge of legality, thanks to last year’s Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, which granted free speech rights to corporations.

“Before Citizens United, federal election law allowed a company like Koch Industries to talk to officers and shareholders about whom to vote for, but not to talk with employees about whom to vote for,” explains Paul M. Secunda, associate professor of law at Marquette University. But according to Secunda, who recently wrote in The Yale Law Journal Online about the effects of Citizens United on political coercion in the workplace, the decision knocked down those regulations. “Now, companies like Koch Industries are free to send out newsletters persuading their employees how to vote. They can even intimidate their employees into voting for their candidates.” Secunda adds, “It’s a very troubling situation.”

The Kochs were major supporters of the Citizens United case; they were also chief sponsors of the Tea Party and major backers of the anti-“Obamacare” campaign. Through their network of libertarian think tanks and policy institutes, they have been major drivers of unionbusting campaigns in Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere.
""

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150681/how_the_koch_brothers_indoctrinate_their_employees_with_right-wing_anti-worker_propaganda/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet_workplace
At the same time Scott SoCal sees nothing wrong in having a public school system repalced by a private corporate sponsored one. Or that there's nothing wrong with having a political class that outright wants the public schools to fail, in favor of the interests of the plutocracy.

And he still believes democracy works...
 
Scott SoCal said:
George Soros

"While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being transported to death camps," reports the Sweetness & Light website, "George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." (Many years later -- in December 1998 -- a CBS interviewer would ask Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about those circumstances. Soros replied: "[T]here was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt." Soros has repeatedly said that 1944 was the best year of his life.

*****

"I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence - but I don't want to be part of it."

*****

The development of capitalism has led to the elimination of all classes but two, a small bourgeoisie and a huge proletariat: and the increase of misery has forced the latter to revolt against its exploiters. The conclusions are, first, that the workers must win the struggle, secondly that, by eliminating bourgeoisie, they must establish a classless society, since only one class remains. (pg. 151-152)

Which is rich considering Soros's enormous wealth (My words)

But all over the earth, organized political power has begun to perform far-reaching economic functions. Unrestrained capitalism has given way to a new historical period, to our own period of political interventionism, of the economic interference of the state. Interventionism has assumed various forms. There is the Russian variety; there is the fascist form of totalitarianism; and there is the domestic interventionism of England, of the United States and the "Smaller Democracies" led by Sweden where the technology of democratic intervention has reached the highest level so far. (pg. 155)

Admittedly, increasing misery must produce resistance, and it is even likely to produce rebellious outbreaks. But the assumption of our argument is that the misery cannot be alleviated until victory has been won in the social revolution. (pg. 163)

I am not in all cases and under all circumstances against a violent revolution. (pg. 166)

...the working of democracy rests largely upon the understanding that a government which attempts to misuse its powers and to establish itself as a tyranny (or which tolerates the establishment of a tyranny by anybody else) outlaws itself, and that the citizens have not only a right, but also a duty to consider the action of such government a crime, and its members as a dangerous gang of criminals. (pg. 167)

*****

Possible KGB Ties

Commentators have pointed out that in order for George Soros to have achieved what he did in his early days, he must have been favored by the communists. The following observations have been made by prominent Czech former dissident leader Petr Cibulka and Jani Allan, a former British Spectator correspondent.

*****

Later Communist Collaborations

Cibulka and Allan also commented on Soros' later ties to communist regimes and movements.

*****

Currency/Regime Collapses and Market Manipulation

Soros is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. The prime minister of Malaysia called Soros an "unscrupulous profiteer." In Thailand, he was branded an "economic war criminal." They also said that he sucks the blood from people.

In 1994, George Soros stated: "Just right that the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire."

The following are George Soros' seven steps for bringing down a regime and causing a currency collapse:

Step One: Form a shadow government using humanitarian aid as cover.
Step Two: Control the airwaves. Fund existing radio and TV outlets and take control over them or start your own outlets.
Step Three: Destabilize the state, weaken the government and build an anti-government kind of feeling in the country. You exploit an economic crisis or take advantage of an existing crisis — pressure from the top and the bottom. This will allow you to weaken the government and build anti-government public sentiment.
Step Four: Sow unrest.
Step Five: Provoke an election crisis. You wait for an election and during the election, you cry voter fraud.
Step Six: Take power. You stage massive demonstrations, civil disobedience, sit-ins, general strikes and you encourage activism. You promote voter fraud and tell followers what to do through your radio and television stations. Incitement and violence are conducted at this stage.
Step Seven: Outlast your opponent

*****

Currency/Financial Collapses

In Dec. of 2010, as Europe teetered on the edge of a complete financial and political breakdown with riots in the streets, Soros wrote an article in the Financial Times on the causes of this situation and possible remedies. From Europe should rescue banks before states, published in the Financial Times on Dec. 15, 2010:

...emergency funds ought to be used to recapitalize banking systems as well as to provide loans to states. The former would be more efficient than the latter. It would leave countries with smaller deficits, and they could regain market access sooner if the banking system were properly capitalized. It is better to inject equity now than later and it is better to do it on a Europe-wide basis than each country acting on its own. That would create a European regulatory regime. Europe-wide regulation of banks interferes with national sovereignty less than European control over fiscal policy.[16]

*****

You want to paint the Koch Bros as bad actors? Fine. They don't hold a candle to this guy.
This is cynically instrumental and propagandistic.

The events of World War II, terrible as they were, which also killed collectively millions of gypsies, homosexuals, Chatholics and communisits, do not justify a US and Western Middle Eastern foreign policy since 48, and especially after 67, with Israel's illegal acquisitions of Palestinian territory against every international regulation and UN law, which has been exclusively in favor of one people at the expense of another. On this account Soros, while not denying the Jews a "right to national existence," has every reason to not wish "to participate".

Or, to put it differently, how many US (though I can't say all of Europe's) politicians haven't wanted "to participate" in seeing that the Palestinians are given a real national status that respects the accords pre-67? And puts an end to the humiliations, suffering and injustices that have been inflicted upon them by Israel? Answer: zero.

How can you be so idiotic to make a tool of WWII anti-semitism, to then pass it off as anything that has been critical of the Israeli state since then? This is a most vapid ideology that is based on pure American-Israeli propaganda. Because, in reality, anti-semitism and political criticism of Israel are totally different and should be. That no nation is above the right to be criticized for its poor and illegal acts, is a democratic principle to which every modern state has been held for the past 250 years or so around these parts. Though here we would seem to have an anomaly based upon economic interests, a historical "alibi" and a religious identity. Moreover the confusion of the two concepts, in light of this pro-Israel propaganda vs. a democratic principle, the West's interests for MidEast oil and the trials of the Palestinian people, is what's really the dangerous and tragic thing.

As for the markets, I think, in light of the 08 scenario - that was caused by deregulation and a democratic political class that has been bought out by the financial and corporate Master's of the Universe at Wall Street- and that was "fixed" with public funds, your ideas about tyranny and mine are rather polar oppositions.


State governments need to "responsibilize" the financial groups and corporations at the stock markets. Business, if left alone, has allowed its drive for profit and greed to bring us to the crisis (and every bubble that's burst in the past); so it won't do it if left unchecked. Society needs to be protected by the governments they elect from this predatory nature of business. This should have been the government's job, though it has done the complete opposite in siding wholeheartedly with the interests of the Lions of the market (even egging them on), at the expense of the Lambs in society from whom they received the votes that got them into power. This is also because of the kick-backs they received from the corporations in campaign financing and other bribes.

This is the where the real tyranny is to be found, though you are looking for it always in the a government that works in the public interests and not those of a few plutarchs in the private sector.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
This is cynically instrumental and propagandistic.

The events of World War II, terrible as they were, which also killed collectively millions of gypsies, homosexuals, Chatholics and communisits, do not justify a US and Western Middle Eastern foreign policy since 48, and especially after 67, with Israel's illegal acquisitions of Palestinian territory against every international regulation and UN law, which has been exclusively in favor of one people at the expense of another. On this account Soros, while not denying the Jews a "right to national existence," has every reason to not wish "to participate".

Or, to put it differently, how many US (though I can't say all of Europe's) politicians haven't wanted "to participate" in seeing that the Palestinians are given a real national status that respects the accords pre-67? And puts an end to the humiliations, suffering and injustices that have been inflicted upon them by Israel? Answer: zero.

How can you be so idiotic to make a tool of WWII anti-semitism, to then pass it off as anything that has been critical of the Israeli state since then? This is a most vapid ideology that is based on pure American-Israeli propaganda. Because, in reality, anti-semitism and political criticism of Israel are totally different and should be. That no nation is above the right to be criticized for its poor and illegal acts, is a democratic principle to which every modern state has been held for the past 250 years or so around these parts. Though here we would seem to have an anomaly based upon economic interests, a historical "alibi" and a religious identity. Moreover the confusion of the two concepts, in light of this pro-Israel propaganda vs. a democratic principle, the West's interests for MidEast oil and the trials of the Palestinian people, is what's really the dangerous and tragic thing.

As for the markets, I think, in light of the 08 scenario - that was caused by deregulation and a democratic political class that has been bought out by the financial and corporate Master's of the Universe at Wall Street- and that was "fixed" with public funds, your ideas about tyranny and mine are rather polar oppositions.


State governments need to "responsibilize" the financial groups and corporations at the stock markets. Business, if left alone, has allowed its drive for profit and greed to bring us to the crisis (and every bubble that's burst in the past); so it won't do it if left unchecked. Society needs to be protected by the governments they elect from this predatory nature of business. This should have been the government's job, though it has done the complete opposite in siding wholeheartedly with the interests of the Lions of the market (even egging them on), at the expense of the Lambs in society from whom they received the votes that got them into power. This is also because of the kick-backs they received from the corporations in campaign financing and other bribes.

This is the where the real tyranny is to be found, though you are looking for it always in the a government that works in the public interests and not those of a few plutarchs in the private sector.

How can you be so idiotic to make a tool of WWII anti-semitism, to then pass it off as anything that has been critical of the Israeli state since then? This is a most vapid ideology that is based on pure American-Israeli propaganda. Because, in reality, anti-semitism and political criticism of Israel are totally different and should be
Once again context eludes you. Klink asked who Soros was. I was happy to answer this question and his activities as a kid are relevant as is his proclaimation that 1944 was "the best year of his life." You should be very, very careful throwing around terms like "idiotic."


As for the markets, I think, in light of the 08 scenario - that was caused by deregulation and a democratic political class that has been bought out by the financial and corporate Master's of the Universe at Wall Street- and that was "fixed" with public funds, your ideas about tyranny and mine are rather polar oppositions.
I'd have to agree with this. Interesting how Soros has publicly stated the need for "managed decline" of the dollar.... and here we are. BTW, this hurts the poor in the U.S. more than any other group. So much for your 'societal' concerns.:rolleyes:

State governments need to "responsibilize" the financial groups and corporations at the stock markets. Business, if left alone, has allowed its drive for profit and greed to bring us to the crisis (and every bubble that's burst in the past); so it won't do it if left unchecked. Society needs to be protected by the governments they elect from this predatory nature of business. This should have been the government's job, though it has done the complete opposite in siding wholeheartedly with the interests of the Lions of the market (even egging them on), at the expense of the Lambs in society from whom they received the votes that got them into power. This is also because of the kick-backs they received from the corporations in campaign financing and other bribes
And yet more government continues to be your only solution. As if we could only get those evil capitalists from tempting those honest government types our plight would be so much better. Question? Which is worse... the briber or the bribee?
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Once again context eludes you. Klink asked who Soros was. I was happy to answer this question and his activities as a kid are relevant as is his proclaimation that 1944 was "the best year of his life." You should be very, very careful throwing around terms like "idiotic."




I'd have to agree with this. Interesting how Soros has publicly stated the need for "managed decline" of the dollar.... and here we are. BTW, this hurts the poor in the U.S. more than any other group. So much for your 'societal' concerns.:rolleyes:



And yet more government continues to be your only solution. As if we could only get those evil capitalists from tempting those honest government types our plight would be so much better. Question? Which is worse... the briber or the bribee?
Meanwhile Alan Greenspan pines about Ayn Rand, and Phil and Wendy Gramm are in Switzerland
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""Hedge-fund managers made a big bet on Barack Obama and other Democrats in 2008. Now, with the 2012 contest gearing up, some prominent fund managers have turned their backs on the party and are actively supporting Republicans.

Daniel Loeb, founder of Third Point LLC, was one of the biggest Obama fund-raisers in 2008, rounding up $200,000 for him, according to campaign-finance records. In the decade prior, Mr. Loeb and his wife donated $250,000 to Democrats and less than $10,000 to Republicans.

But since Mr. Obama's inauguration, Mr. Loeb has given $468,000 to Republican candidates and the GOP, and just $8,000 to Democrats. Hedge-fund kings have feelings, too, and the president appears to have hurt them.

"I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the president will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words," Mr. Loeb wrote in an email about four months ago expressing frustration with the president's posture toward Wall Street. "I mean, he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn't mean it." The email, sent to eight friends, was widely circulated on Wall Street.""
 
Scott SoCal said:
Once again context eludes you. Klink asked who Soros was. I was happy to answer this question and his activities as a kid are relevant as is his proclaimation that 1944 was "the best year of his life." You should be very, very careful throwing around terms like "idiotic."




I'd have to agree with this. Interesting how Soros has publicly stated the need for "managed decline" of the dollar.... and here we are. BTW, this hurts the poor in the U.S. more than any other group. So much for your 'societal' concerns.:rolleyes:



And yet more government continues to be your only solution. As if we could only get those evil capitalists from tempting those honest government types our plight would be so much better. Question? Which is worse... the briber or the bribee?
Context eludes me huh? Spoken from one who has never been able to contextualize anything, but only makes instrumental arguments to mystify reality. And who doesn't wish to consider anything that runs contrary to such a mysitification of events and the proper contexts into which one thinking objectively, with a broader worldly and historical view, is led to see them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
Context eludes me huh? Spoken from one who has never been able to contextualize anything, but only makes instrumental arguments to mystify reality. And who doesn't wish to consider anything that runs contrary to such a mysitification of events and the proper contexts into which one thinking objectively, with a broader worldly and historical view, is led to see them.
Why not just address what I accuse you of?
 
Scott SoCal said:
Why not just address what I accuse you of?
I don't know why, or in whcih context, Soros said that about 44. But what I do understand is that your attempts to vilify a man, for good reasons or not, as a means, however, to demonstrate why your boy Koch doesn't represent grave issues for democracy, was puerile and idiotic.

And as I said before purely instrumental and out of context.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Meanwhile Alan Greenspan pines about Ayn Rand, and Phil and Wendy Gramm are in Switzerland
Frank Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Cox, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Robert Rubin, Angelo Mozilo, Hank Greenberg, Charles Prince.... lordy, there were a bunch of bad guys. Most in the private world are unemployed. How about Barney Frank?

This from a book review of author Robert Scheer (your kind)

In fact, if this debacle has a name, Scheer suggests, it is the "Clinton Bubble," that era when the administration let its friends on Wall Street write legislation that razed decades of robust financial regulation. It was Wall Street and Democratic Party darling Robert Rubin along with his clique of economist super-friends—Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers, and a few others—who inflated a giant real estate bubble by purposely not regulating the derivatives market, resulting in the pain and hardship millions are experiencing now.
Gramm and Greenspan played a role. To suggest it was them and only them is, of course, false.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
I don't know why, or in whcih context, Soros said that about 44. But what I do understand is that your attempts to vilify a man, for good reasons or not, as a means, however, to demonstrate why your boy Koch doesn't represent grave issues for democracy, was puerile and idiotic.

And as I said before purely instrumental and out of context.
I don't know why, or in whcih context

Perhaps you should find out before throwing around terms like 'idiotic.'

Koch is not 'my boy.' I believe, just a few posts back, I condemn the way they are purchasing political favor. I believe I used the word 'corrupt.'

I find it illustrative you (and Klink) will not use similar language regarding Soros as he's a really bad guy (but supports many of your causes).

I'm only left to believe the ends must justify the means with you.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
bottom 40% of income earners control .039% of the nations wealth. Dan Ariely on WNYC's Lopate show. Also this week Economist has a cool article about California politics. I remember when the prop process in California was described as political cowardice. When a issue was too sticky, a career sinker, it would be put up for referendum, leaving really difficult things to be voted on by the citizens. CA system based on some Swiss form.
 
fatandfast said:
bottom 40% of income earners control .039% of the nations wealth.
And this right here is why, despite agreeing on several issues, I cannot support the "conservatives" and believe the wealthy can pay more in taxes.

My state of Oregon is much the same as far as referendums. The legislature here rarely debates anything pressing, let along voting on it. Instead, they debate nearly issues that may not be frivolous, but hardly change anything, like cyberbullying, an absurd film industry tax credit extension. They pass on all the heavy lifting to voters. Then half of the measures that are voted in spend a few years in the courts before getting nixed. Those bills that are most "extreme" will then get debated in the legislature about being amended. It's a crazy system no one from any political belief would devise.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Gramm and Greenspan played a role. To suggest it was them and only them is, of course, false.
To say it wasn't them is to be a fool..The clinton end of it was all about Rubin and Citibank, becoming Citigroup.. So they got theirs but..When Goldman and Lehmann Bros etc starting getting to be what they never were(banks) the doors flew wide open..It took republicans to make it a full blown scam..I'm sure Gramm Leich Bielly was written by the scammers..(republicans)...Back in the 80s the S&L fiasco was enabled by a democratic sponsored bill but once again it was republicans going full genius with it.. It was protection money from these criminals that built the modern Republican party.
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Frank Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Cox, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Robert Rubin, Angelo Mozilo, Hank Greenberg, Charles Prince.... lordy, there were a bunch of bad guys. Most in the private world are unemployed. How about Barney Frank?

This from a book review of author Robert Scheer (your kind)



Gramm and Greenspan played a role. To suggest it was them and only them is, of course, false.
To assume this wasn't a continuation of Reagan's plan is just laying the blame solely on the Clinton presidency. Reagan cashed in an era of careful restructuring done by Jimmy C & Paul. Carter was vilified and not reelected but he sucked up the bad press for the most part and did what was necessary.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Oldman said:
To assume this wasn't a continuation of Reagan's plan is just laying the blame solely on the Clinton presidency. Reagan cashed in an era of careful restructuring done by Jimmy C & Paul. Carter was vilified and not reelected but he sucked up the bad press for the most part and did what was necessary.
Volcker..

Carter was victimized by a Republican leaning financial apparatus that stayed in place all through the Reagan years and definitely through the Clinton years..They are so entrenched an alternative to them barely exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

Can you say ENRON? sure you can...
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
redtreviso said:
Volcker..

Carter was victimized by a Republican leaning financial apparatus that stayed in place all through the Reagan years and definitely through the Clinton years..They are so entrenched an alternative to them barely exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

Can you say ENRON? sure you can...
Carter, as Obama; was victimized as much by that time in financial history as anything. Separate the braying by donkeys both left and right and the options to act are limited to doing the least harm. Trump can try to pin the new high price of US gas on Obama while simultaneously questioning his citizenship but even (especially) he doesn't believe that. Until real estate finally hits a real value this will go on.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Oldman said:
Carter, as Obama; was victimized as much by that time in financial history as anything. Separate the braying by donkeys both left and right and the options to act are limited to doing the least harm. Trump can try to pin the new high price of US gas on Obama while simultaneously questioning his citizenship but even (especially) he doesn't believe that. Until real estate finally hits a real value this will go on.
I think it simply comes down to Bush being a dumbazzz,. everything about him made the economy crash. The Fed couldn't give money away to business because there was little so Wall Street found a way to have this money but still there was no business to invest it in and get their cut., So they made up their own out of thin air. Used fed money, used fed money to hedge to short to default swap to give themselves bonuses to prop up major indexes for show.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS