Sunday, March 06, 2011

Flying Dutch on Austerity and the Economy in 2011

From http://christianinfobomb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=21925
 
The point is, it IS NOT the only solution and if you had to do it you don't cut or end all social security, welfare, pensions etc. People also have paid for all of that, so what do they get in return for those contributions? See they don't ...s...ay you "killing" is the only solution, but that is the reality of the consequences of their policy or agenda.
Even if you want a society to change into no government or limited government, you have to come up with an alternative, you cannot say:"too bad for these few million people that need help, i'm going to cut it away, and you're misery or even death is a sacrifice to the nation, you didn't die in vain, but for a new good system"...so the end justifies the means, which is a red flag. Because if the misery of one or a few or 1% or 10% or whatever percentage of the population leaves you cold, then what does ANY life matter or that of everybody? Not many people buy into many ideologies and theories, maybe not even realizing what it means, but i don't think that you are just wanting to cancel or heavily cut welfare/ social security without understanding what the consequences will be and if you do, even if you don't understand ( lack of intellectual capacity), that both is a reason to not be in the position of government anyway!!The LaRouche club is bringing this news not very subtile, they throw it in your face, but basically that is the reality. You can wrap a round it, but no money for food or housing is a big problem and we cannot rely on charity, although there is more charity in the US, but if the broader economic situation worsen, more people have no money left for charity or don't make it their priority while the need for it is increasing at the same time. So you're hoplessly dependent, if you happened to be one of the needy that somebody has a big heart enough to help you.




The policy is maybe not intentionally meant as fascism, but that's the result of it...whatever the reason is why these certain politicians think that way.But hey, if you receive money for your campaign of wallstreet, both gentlemen accepte...d that, even if you accept that, you're already compromized basicall even if it's a small donation, because you morally allow you to being influenced and funded or to identify with those groups.( Rand didn't receive as much Wallstreet money as Obama, but even so he did receive it and some of the Tea Party much more than him) Now, let's say Rand and the rest there will accept most of their campaign money from Wallstreet, what do you think the outcome of his policies is gonna be? You're completely compromized, like you see Obama not going up against his funders...logically. This is conflict of interest and that already begins with campaign funds of corporations. This and the fact that the Austrian School is always been a creation of the very aristocratic families in Europe that wanted to keep the statu quo for them and exported this to the US, including the notorious robber barons, that funded the school and even were taught in it some of them and it was for unlimited privatization, unrestricted market, some even in Anarcho-Capitalism, which apologised and still does today, the notorious robber barons as well meaning people that worked hard and were involved in charity...so the cover up. The idea is government is bad, so we need to run everything privately...the problem is that corruption as a result of conflict of interest is now rampant and government is not pure government anymore. I've told the other details often enough, but we got a huge problem with that and unfortunately Ran or any of these others is not going to make any change in this, rather worsen the situation.




My problem with the video presentation is the more offensive words mixed into name calling certain individuals, You shouldn't do it that way and just say what is wrong with it and why etc...not go personal.
However i don't think is 's untrue... what in says in terms of information. If you say somebody is incompetent ( intentionally or not) or linked to this or that group or corporation it should be clear enough.

So as logical result of being so pro corporate and private sector, you get his:

Rand Paul: White House criticism of BP is "un-American"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLhyPnZgKgg

...Rand Paul's Crazy BP Oil Spill Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgEQ3R6QWz8&feature=fvw

Rand Paul BP NOT Responsible for Oil Spill
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/politics/main6506354.shtml

http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&source=hp&biw=1916&bih=865&q=Rand+Paul+BP+NOT+Responsible+for+Oil+Spill+&btnG=Google+zoeken&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=c701523b6772455

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?entry_id=64146

So, how weird is that? He takes the side of the corporation, the private sector above all.

Rand is completely ignoring what BP did and how they obstructed everything, their lack of maintenance BP is notorious for Globally!! Etc. etc. Rand is omitting all of this....has to be intentionally.




The Young Turks ( TYT) is right here, that's what it is, their analyzes.The Young Turks ( TYT) is right here, that's what it is, their analyzes.

Obama and Rand Paul or the pro Wallstreet/ corporatist Tea Party or other mainstream Reps and Dems all give you the same policy and agenda, because that's for where they are working for!!
In the beginning i thought Rand Paul would maybe do t...he right thing

Sarah Palin Endorses Rand Paul - WHAS 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB64gE2SGPA

Rand Paul on MSNBC Discusses Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbIS0B2nOg&feature=related

How come Rand accepted that endorsement of a NeoCon infiltrator into the Tea Party? Rand says:"against the establihsment", oh the establishment THEY are working for you mean?

So why are many of the alternative websites and radio talk show hosts launching that individuals and many like him so much?

No comments: