World Politics

Page 420 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
VeloCity said:
The more of those Republican debates I watch, the more I believe ALL conservatives (and most Republicans) are shallow, reprehensible, morally bankrupt, ignorant people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

Perry and Bachmann and Santorum and Gingrich and co are the people who you want to represent you?? That would just be pathetic if it weren't so scary for the rest of us.
Some would say that's hardly a surprising point of view from a wishy-washy tree hugging liberal who lives in the **** crack of all evil, the root of all our problems, that modern Sodom and Gomorrah of politics known as...Washington.

Since I live in what some call Sin City, I make you spot on. People like Perry and Bachmann make even Euro conservatives cringe with embarrassment. Before anyone jumps on me, yes we have shallow and reprehensible politicians too - his name is Geert Wilders. :(
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
ramjambunath said:
I think Obama's speech at the UN yesterday was not good. He pointed out revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and the ongoing Libyan rebellion and said that Iran and Syria were not giving their citizens their fundamental rights. Now, I agree that Syria is an actual situation but he shouldn't be trying to force Iran govt(which is a democratically elected govt and far more than the Afghan president with whom he gave joint statement not one week ago) into submission. Iran is much more forward as an Islamic state than many others including their allies Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (which he says he helped the govt listen to the rebellion in the speech, but that's ********).

Yes, the Libyan rebellion seems genuine and deserves support which the west has given but the Bahrain rebellion (Bahrain is predominantly poor, inexplicably so due to their oil) was swept under the carpet and instead of claiming to do something which he hasn't he could just have left it out of his speech.
Possibly someone in India would view the intrusion of religion into politics as something perfectly natural and ordinary, since that is what you are used to. To enlightened westerners, Iran is possibly the worst example you could mention in conjunction with words like 'democratic' and 'forward'. As Rhub has rightly pointed out, a theocracy is the most misplaced of all possible regimes in the 21st century. The mullahs have turned Iran into an abominable pariah state, a travesty of what we consider 'democratic'.

As for the Palestinians - do they deserve to have their own state? Absolutely. While I can understand some of the 'realpolitik' considerations leading to the US veto, I am nevertheless disappointed that Obama is so beholden to the unbelievably powerful Jewish lobby that he feels unable to put his weight behind what I see as a historical inevitability.

There will be an independent Palestine one day, but that will not solve the problems of the region. The bottom line is that even in the extremely unlikely event of all other issues being solved, the status of Jerusalem will always remain as a stumbling block - the Arabs will always want it back, Israel will never give it up.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
"Ich Bin Ein Israel Guy." --Rick Perry (no he didn't really)


""She wrote:

This was meant not to defuse but to inflame. It does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Perry that when you are running for president you have to be big, you have to act as if you're a broad fellow who understands that when the American president is in a tight spot in the U.N., America is in a tight spot in the U.N. You don't exploit it for political gain.

Perry competitor Rick Santorum responded: "I've forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel," he told Politico. Mr. Perry "has never taken a position on any of this stuff before, and [the media is] taking this guy seriously."

The Israeli newspaper Ha'artez likened Mr. Perry's remarks to "a pep rally for one of Israel's right-wing politicians, and a hard-liner at that," adding that the governor "adopted the rhetoric of Israel's radical right lock, stock and barrel."

I'd add only that in his first foreign-policy foray, the GOP front-runner looked like a cheap, base-playing buffoon.""

http://www.businessinsider.com/noonan-perry-looked-like-cheap-buffoon-giving-israel-speech-2011-9?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
 
Amsterhammer said:
Possibly someone in India would view the intrusion of religion into politics as something perfectly natural and ordinary, since that is what you are used to. To enlightened westerners, Iran is possibly the worst example you could mention in conjunction with words like 'democratic' and 'forward'. As Rhub has rightly pointed out, a theocracy is the most misplaced of all possible regimes in the 21st century. The mullahs have turned Iran into an abominable pariah state, a travesty of what we consider 'democratic'.

As for the Palestinians - do they deserve to have their own state? Absolutely. While I can understand some of the 'realpolitik' considerations leading to the US veto, I am nevertheless disappointed that Obama is so beholden to the unbelievably powerful Jewish lobby that he feels unable to put his weight behind what I see as a historical inevitability.

There will be an independent Palestine one day, but that will not solve the problems of the region. The bottom line is that even in the extremely unlikely event of all other issues being solved, the status of Jerusalem will always remain as a stumbling block - the Arabs will always want it back, Israel will never give it up.
Things were really sensational today in the UN, with Abu Mazen receiving a standing ovation, something that's extremely rare in the house of glass, for his appeals to the international community. He was also predictably most severe with Israel in terms of its obstinacy and its imperialism. Never has he enjoyed such a high approval rate at 85% among his people.

Just as predictable, though, was Israel's and the US's position, both Netanyahu and Obama having categorically rejected any sovereignty concession to the Palestinians just yet, stating that "no mere resolution can establish peace" and that it wasn't the time to make hasty and compromising (to whom?) decisions, or act precipitously. But this was obvioulsy no more than a stall tactic that's quickly running beyond its historical expiration date.

While the Israelis additionally have said that any dismantling of the colonies would amount to an "ethnic cleansing of jews." A most ironic statement, however, since it is made without considering that such settlements themselves, apart from having been condemned internationally as an illegal breech of both the 48 and 67 Israeli border stipulations, have resulted in a veritable travesty for the Palestinians. Illegal colonies which are thus viewed as violent acts of abominable humiliation for Arabs in the broader sense. Seen from the Arab perspective inside and outside the region, Israel's attempts to return their state to the biblical confines of pre-Roman antiquity, as especially promoted by the religiously hard-line and conservative rabbinic jews, who have a fervent ally in the current Prime Minister and the Knesset, amounts to no less than an attempted and methodically pursued Palestinian genocide under the aegis of the Americans. This only makes more appalling and grotesque such appeals against what has actually taken place and it lays blame on another for the crimes you have committed, I thought, but not them. Indeed what the Israelis would refer to as a hypothetical "ethnic cleansing," the Arabs around the region have seen as impudent and condemnable acts of imperialism in their territory, which, if left unchecked, would result in the total expungement of the local Arabs. In any other place around the world, moreover, such would be viewed as if the US invaded Canada and began to establish satellite colonies in another's homeland.

However, since the UN with its seat in NY has largely been in this regard viewed from the Arab perspective as an American puppet organization and since the superpower has always sided with Israel, despite the fact that the international community has repeatedly condemned the Jewish extra-territorial settlements as illegal, the brazen injustice has been allowed to continue without international consequence.

As far as no resolution being able to establish peace is concerned, such reasoning is merely a vapid ideology, as well as a pathetic alibi, that has become increasingly exposed for being the base hypocrisy that it is, especially in terms of the more recent US' bellicose attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East and the nascent so called Arab spring that has ensued partly as a result. This has only further isolated Israel in a region that now feels like it has every right to ask for legitimacy and justice.

What the Israelis and Americans conveniently overlook, therefore, and are consequently out of touch with the reality of the current regional and sub-regional developments; is that blindly holding on to past policies and models without compromise, only makes them appear more hypocritical and arrogant, as well as simply being out of touch with the present course of history. In addition, Israel fails to grasp that the time for having it all its way is over and that the only means to establish any form of enduring peace with the Arabs is to give up the colonies and fully recognize the neighboring Palestinian state, which already de facto exists. Otherwise the violence and acts of destabilizing terrorism, on both sides, can only but persist. Of course the former knows that caving into the latter's demands, means that it will then be made to face accountabilty in the Hague international criminal court of justice, something that it absolutely wants to avoid in order to be able to pursue its policy of total expropriation of Palestinian lands. Among the Israeli hardliners such is viewed as the Jewish State's "Manifest Destiny," which amounts to - and under a so called divine and biblical justification - what the US did to the native American popultions. Something hardly acceptable, let alone justifiable, in this day and age, under the current human rights and international peace promoting ideals that govern the very UN at which a decision is to be made on this case. One regarding a world order that it hopes to promote and uphold, and over which the democratic US holds a privileged and decisive leadership position. All of which makes a veto on the part of America especially repulsive and reprehensible, I've thought, to say nothing of how hypocritical. It goes against every secular and Enlightenment/democratic principle America and the West are supposed to uphold. How long, though, might will make right is the open question that begs to be answered. And how long will such an anachronistic and decidedly anti-progressive policy be given US approval?

There are those who would argue, however, that even if Israel were to do all this that the Arabs will never give up the terrorism, with groups like Hamas still having a place among Palestinian sympathies and that, as you say, the thorny question of Jerusalem will never be resolved.

Yet I find this to be a rather ignoble cop-out that, once again, simply reflects the fruit of one's prepotency over and intransigence with the other, only because it is deluded in a belief that it can continue ad infinitem with an increasingly untenable one-way policy. For the best way to marginalize and ultimately eliminate groups like Hamas, is to take the wind out of their sails and eliminate their raison d'etre by making the first step in giving full UN state status to Palestine. There can be no other way, also because there are a majority among the exhausted Palestinians who would rather have a partial conquest and live without bombs than to have nothing and live with them, because they know, like Israel, that they can't have it all their way, unjust as this may appear to them. Indeed just as the moderate Abu Mazen has done in not requesting a pre-48, but a pre-67, accord, even if this will not be accepted by Hamas.

It is thus interesting to note that Hamas is the first to hope for Abu Mazen's failure. At the sulfuric city of Hebron, a Hamas stronghold, there is hence no surprise that there is more anger than hope on the streets for Obama's "betrayal," as the Palestinians naturally expected it. "When he arrived at the White House his ideas had given us hope, though what he said in the UN demonstrates that he's no different from his predecessors," pressed Mohammad Zidane the union delegate in support of Abu Mazen's discourse at New York. Whereas Hamas, which once again wants to dance on the ashes of Mazen's denied initiative since that gives them continued reason to thrive, has said through its official spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri: "It was wrong from the start to go to the UN. Obama's speech reflects the American tendency without reserve to favor Israel and its military occupation of our land, which only demonstrates that the Arabs and the Palestinians were mistaken to have continued to count on the Americans."
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Fox freaks after Ron Paul wins debate

Published: 23 September, 2011, 22:50

If you’ve noticed a lack of Ron Paul in the mainstream media’s coverage of the 2012 presidential race, it might not be an accident. After he placed first in a Fox News poll, the outlet has removed the results from their website without explanation.

Fox had launched an online poll to gauge readers’ opinions on last night’s Republican show-down and asked their audience, “Which GOP presidential candidate do you think won the Fox News/Google debate?” At one point Paul placed in first, with 30 percent of the votes, but a reader of Infowars.com has pointed out that the poll has disappeared from the website, or has been shuffled to another page far from the front of Fox’s political coverage.

Logging onto the poll now produces an error in which the user is told “No content item selected.”

A screen shot of the poll produced by Infowars shows that Paul led with 24,8945 votes, with Mitt Romney trailing in second place with 22,656 votes, of 27 percent of the total. Rick Perry placed third with 15 percent of the votes, followed by Herman Cain with 9 percent.

Speaking from the stage during last night’s debate, Paul reminded the audience that he has been placing quite well in most surveys as of late. The mainstream media, however, continues to ignore him, despite pleasant polling.

When quizzed during last night’s debate from Orlando, Florida on whom he might consider as a running mate, Paul deterred the question and noted that he wouldn’t bother selecting anyone until he made it in the “top two.” In the meantime, Paul said, he was running in third in most national polls.

The mainstream media continues to overlook Paul, however, favoring Rick Perry and Mitt Romney as the frontrunners, and unexplainably offering more airtime to Michele Bachmann. Speaking to CNN yesterday, former presidential candidate and long-time activist Ralph Nader said he thought Paul was perhaps most appealing of the current GOP candidates.

“He wants to get out of these wars overseas, he wants to bring the soldiers back, he wants to cut the bloated military budget, he wants to change some of the anti-civil liberty provisions in the Patriot Act, he hates corporate welfare and all these bailouts of Wall Street crooks,” said Nader. “He ought to get more attention, instead of ten times more attention being given to Michele Bachmann.”

A USA Today/Gallup poll released on Tuesday put Paul as the number three candidate in the GOP race, receiving nearly three times the favor of Bachmann. In New Hampshire, where the first primary of the 2012 race will take place this winter, Paul came in second place, between Mitt Romney in first and Jon Huntsman in second.

https://rt.com/usa/news/fox-paul-debate-poll-257/

:rolleyes: If the news doesn't suit, pull it.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
The powers that be don't want Ron Paul because of his foreign policy positions you alude to. He is a threat to the military/industrial/corporate welfare complex and the mass us vs them movement that enables those powers. The real powers in the GOP need enemies to feed their supporters. The mass media is corporate owned.

We lay off teachers and watch our infrastructure go to shyt, while we build drone sites and bomb others on a daily basis, and shield corporate crooks. And the useful idiots cheer that on and vote for their own demise because somebody gay is in the army or somebody black is on welfare.
 
Chris is generally right, Paul has been outwardly critical of the neocons that control the GOP for several years. The thought of him getting the nomination scares the heck out of them. Also keep in mind that FOX News isn't media of any sort, they are almost entirely a propaganda machine for the money establishment in the right.

Understand another thing about these push polls, they can be stuffed in some ways. It isn't really a good barometer, as Paul has a good deal of very zealous fans who are more likely to vote to try to skew the numbers than most of the other candidates. Granted, this also means they are most likely to vote, but it's not quite one and the same.

In the end I don't know that Paul is going to win a single state. He will constantly be fighting Bachman for 3rd, behind Romney and Perry.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
I'm fully aware of where 'Fox news' is at, Alpe.;)

Just thought it was an amusing piece. I have not seen or read anything about the last 'debate', but have been told that Perry's performance was so abysmal as to have eliminated him as a serious contender. Can anyone elucidate and elaborate?
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm fully aware of where 'Fox news' is at, Alpe.;)

Just thought it was an amusing piece. I have not seen or read anything about the last 'debate', but have been told that Perry's performance was so abysmal as to have eliminated him as a serious contender. Can anyone elucidate and elaborate?
It should be on BBC radio. Heard a part of it on world service. It was almost sad to hear his bumbling.
 
Amsterhammer said:
... have been told that Perry's performance was so abysmal as to have eliminated him as a serious contender. Can anyone elucidate and elaborate?
Not true. Yes, in every debate he has looked poor. His speaking is rough, he bumbles his words and seems to be weak at thinking on his feet and by comparison makes the slick Romney look scholarly. He's also been ripped by many for his stands on Social Security on other issues, and if he keeps that stand, in a head to head with Obama he's going to seem extreme and not attract many votes in the middle.

However, there is also a very ardent group who support him anyway. They see him as a stand-up leader from a big state, a decider, who sides with their anti-government stance.

Also, these debates are very early, which means Perry has time to polish his words and delivery. There's also plenty of time for Sarah Palin or Chris Christie to get in the race. Sarah probably won't, but Christie gets big support ($$$) from the Koch Brothers, and might.

Here's a link, showing that connection, and that the "libertarian" Koch's are hardly libertarian at all. They're basically plutocrats who get socialist favors as much as anyone in the country.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Well then,, just move your wife and kids there and don't come back..

Coca-Cola now sees the US as a less friendly business environment than China, its chief executive has revealed, citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure as reasons its home market has become less competitive.

“It’s like a well-managed company, China,” Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, told the Financial Times. “You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other.”

Mr Kent also pointed to Brazil as an example of an emerging economy that is making itself attractive to investment in ways that the US once did.

“They’re learning very fast, these countries,” he said. “In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/071f902c-e636-11e0-960c-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F071f902c-e636-11e0-960c-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D102x5006941#axzz1Z6BHGZ00
 
ChrisE said:
They might have held you because you're American, but your dumb azz ended up there because you are a dumbazz. WTH would somebody want to go hiking on the border of Iran and Iraq? Idiots.

I would also like to know where the $1 million came from. Probably rich families that allows them to act like idiots.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44659101/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
i agree on the certain lack of smarts on their part. that story did not add up unless they are idiots. and apparently they are.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
usedtobefast said:
i agree on the certain lack of smarts on their part. that story did not add up unless they are idiots. and apparently they are.
One thing that is unsurprisingly ironic is the headlines today by the corporate whor media scream that they went thru this because they were American. Yet, no telling how many thousands of people are locked up by America in the world with no rights at all and with little hope of ever being freed. And I read somewhere that the captors told them this while they were imprisoned.

But, they were locked up because they were American!!!!!! How dare them. Time for a tax cut. Look over there...somebody having an abortion!
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
ChrisE said:
One thing that is unsurprisingly ironic is the headlines today by the corporate whor media scream that they went thru this because they were American. Yet, no telling how many thousands of people are locked up by America in the world with no rights at all and with little hope of ever being freed. And I read somewhere that the captors told them this while they were imprisoned.

But, they were locked up because they were American!!!!!! How dare them. Time for a tax cut. Look over there...somebody having an abortion!
""Fattal then expressed "great thanks to world leaders and individuals" who worked for their release, including Hugo Chavez, the governments of Turkey and Brazil, Sean Penn, Noam Chomsky, Mohammad Ali, Cindy Sheehan, Desmond Tutu, as well as Muslims from around the world and "elements within the Iranian government," as well as U.S. officials.""

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/26/iran/index.html
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Not true. Yes, in every debate he has looked poor. His speaking is rough, he bumbles his words and seems to be weak at thinking on his feet and by comparison makes the slick Romney look scholarly. He's also been ripped by many for his stands on Social Security on other issues, and if he keeps that stand, in a head to head with Obama he's going to seem extreme and not attract many votes in the middle.

However, there is also a very ardent group who support him anyway. They see him as a stand-up leader from a big state, a decider, who sides with their anti-government stance.

Also, these debates are very early, which means Perry has time to polish his words and delivery. There's also plenty of time for Sarah Palin or Chris Christie to get in the race. Sarah probably won't, but Christie gets big support ($$$) from the Koch Brothers, and might.

Here's a link, showing that connection, and that the "libertarian" Koch's are hardly libertarian at all. They're basically plutocrats who get socialist favors as much as anyone in the country.
Perry is only going to be so polished, but that's not the worst of his problems. His support for in state tuition for illegal aliens, while correct, will cost him, and not just with tea party faithful. Moderate republicans, independents and even a fair few democrats take a dim view of what they consider a soft stance on immigration.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
patricknd said:
Perry is only going to be so polished, but that's not the worst of his problems. His support for in state tuition for illegal aliens, while correct, will cost him, and not just with tea party faithful. Moderate republicans, independents and even a fair few democrats take a dim view of what they consider a soft stance on immigration.
All Republicans are soft on immigration.. To the real leaders of the party and conservatives in general, immigration=Wage Pressure...
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""International Trader: ‘I Go To Bed Every Night And I Dream Of Another Recession’ |
While European government and financial leaders are scrambling to prevent a financial crisis in the Eurozone that would likely throw the global economy into even more turmoil, stock trader Alessio Rastani took to BBC today to tell the world that traders were looking forward to the possibility of a second big recession. “For most traders, it’s not about – we don’t really care that much how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation,” he said. “Our job is to make money from it.” Rastani, who also claimed “Goldman Sachs rules the world,” said, “Personally, I’ve been dreaming of this moment for three years…I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. When the market crashes… if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.”
--------------------------------------------------------


Wall Street bankers like Rastani, meanwhile, are large donors to the GOP’s presidential frontrunners, who want to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that was aimed at preventing another financial crisis like the one that wrecked the American economy in 2008.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/26/329102/wall-street-trader-recession-dream/
""
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Not true. Yes, in every debate he has looked poor. His speaking is rough, he bumbles his words and seems to be weak at thinking on his feet and by comparison makes the slick Romney look scholarly. He's also been ripped by many for his stands on Social Security on other issues, and if he keeps that stand, in a head to head with Obama he's going to seem extreme and not attract many votes in the middle.

However, there is also a very ardent group who support him anyway. They see him as a stand-up leader from a big state, a decider, who sides with their anti-government stance.

Also, these debates are very early, which means Perry has time to polish his words and delivery. There's also plenty of time for Sarah Palin or Chris Christie to get in the race. Sarah probably won't, but Christie gets big support ($$$) from the Koch Brothers, and might.

Here's a link, showing that connection, and that the "libertarian" Koch's are hardly libertarian at all. They're basically plutocrats who get socialist favors as much as anyone in the country.

The only reason the guy has any appeal at all is because the right has invested colossal sums since the 70's in establishing an ideological hegemony over the nation. We are thus still riding the long wave of a 30 years hegemony of conservative thought, which is so strong and has such a far reaching organization network that the right can even permit itself to denounce the modest proposal of Obama for a millionaires tax that is equitable to that of the employed as an "instigation to class war".

Of course the left has learned to use the new digital technologies and take advantage of the web, for instance in the case of MoveOn.org, however, the only real popular movement in America today is the Tea Party composed of veterans of neoconservative thought and financed by billionaires, which aims to effect further cuts on social and welfare spending while opposing any form of tax hikes even those for the rich.

The most noteworthy news in America is this and the deafening silence: that is the total absence of a mass struggle or movement against neoconservatism and the rapacity of the banks, Wall Street and the plutocracy among the elite business class.

Instead, what we get, is the Tea Party and utter morons like this guy Perry. He's such a horribly inadequate and provincial obscurantist that it doesn't even bear thinking about, let alone considering, as one who may potentially sit in the White House. And yet the country is so convinced of the ideology his kind represents that not only does it take him seriously, but among many he is actually seen as a model candidate, which is naturally appalling.
 
A common myth about Europe's rise in public debt is that it is the product of a fiscal policy that runs contrary to neoliberal economic philosophy. In fact, just the opposite is true. Because the reality is that the peripheral euro zone states, like Spain and Ireland which previously had low public debts with respect to their deficits, received large bank loans when the common euro currency replaced the national ones.

Those funds were not largely spent within the public sector, though, but primarily within the private one and particularly in the real estate market. When the recession hit the demand consequently diminished and when the boom in loans brusquely dried-up as a result, a crisis was born that was both economic and fiscal. Following the ideology of eternal market growth and the logic of financial capitalism, coupled by violent recession, the crisis sent the state budgets profoundly in the red. In the meantime the cost of emergency in extremis interventions of the banks brought about an unforeseen increase in the already gloated public debts. One of the results of which has been a decline in investors' trust in the national bonds of the peripheral states, made worse by a large dose of speculation at the worlds financial exchanges.

All of this means that the problems Europe is facing today aren't in any way connected to the social state, but by internal and external pressures to embark upon a mad, precipitous rush toward financial capitalism and speculation, where everything is done hastily because of greed and without ever carefully considering where one is going or why.

Yet Europe's crisis is to the great delight of the neoliberal regime, which has been waging a war on social democracy ever since the Regan years and with renewed confidence after the fall of the Soviet Union, for which it only thinks of and calls for ever more rigorous and unsupportable austerity measures, at the expense of public need and the tax contributions.

The private sector helped by the banks shamelessly squandered all the funds, while being egged on and abetted by a political class that only gave a damn about their cronies in the business class (and vice versa), but now has the audacity to expect the tax payers to fix a problem, while all the services get cut, which was caused chiefly by the excesses of finance, the banks and the neoliberal business ideology.

That's because we live in a world in which everything is done to make the economy grow, to build more homes and retail centers to be filled with every type of superfluous gadget that this drugged on consumerism society has been made to believe by our political and economic leaders we can't live without, even if, in the end, we all become much poorer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS