"The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible."

Thomas More, Utopia

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Naked Face of Plutocracy

"A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room. The guests were asked for their thoughts on how to speed the economic recovery, then the president opened the floor for over an hour on hot issues like hedge fund regulation and the deficit..."-NYT (aka Stenographers of Record)

Yes, I know you're shocked but here's the rest anyway...


Anonymous said...

heebee heebee

Anonymous said...

HoleWipe, I am here to correct you yet again

Pluocracy ended in the early 20th century with equal voting rights. One citizen - one vote. That's how we do it here. LEARN IT, you fool!

I am not going to allow you to errantly use terminology you barely understand and poorly employ in your semi-literate ramblings.


Coldtype said...

"Pluocracy ended in the early 20th century with equal voting rights"-Anon

Really? So you buy into the fiction that living, breathing human beings have the same influence in our political system that major corporations enjoy absent publicly funded elections? Its been over a century since an activist Supreme Court made a mockery of the Civil War constitutional amendments meant to grant former slaves the full rights of citizenship by declaring that corporations, an artificial construct, are "people" in the eyes of the law. Since this travesty was inflicted upon us the US has been ruled by an unelected dictatorship of money with the full force of law.

It may come as some surprise to you that elections in the US are designed to ensure that the public remains marginalized. Since elections without a pubic funding mechanism will always be the plaything of those with the most cash to finance and influence candidates, it should hardly be remarkable that the polices produced by such a compromised process will largely reflect the interests of those who bore the costs to be the boss. In our present era that means that corporations rule the roost in our alleged democratic republic. Remember that corporations exist for the sole purpose of returning a profit for its shareholders above all other concerns... by law. Do you understand the implications of this within a society that professes to be a democratic republic?

At this late in the game are you still confused about what transpired with the bailouts of '08, the greatest wealth transfer in all of recorded human history? The Wall Street hustlers through fraud and greed, with the ready assistance of a thoroughly compromised regulatory system, cratered the world economy then were allowed--via a political landscape they'd bought and paid for--to transfer their losses onto the public's balance sheet.

Obama received record-setting campaign contributions from the financial sector and the insurance industry during the 2008 elections and these investments were the most profitable bets in all of history. What was their reward? The Great Bailout Heist of '08/'09 and the healthcare "reform" package better known as Obamacare that amounts to a massive subsidy of the insurance industry.
That's plutocracy at work.

Anonymous said...

Holewipe, listen dummy

Corporate contributions are protected free speech. Just as are Employee organizations (what you mistakenly call "Labor") contributions. Unions have bought off more elections in this country than any corporation could ever hope to.

What was their reward? The UAW bailout. Nationalization of a large part of the auto industry. Pure Socialism. That’s what over $7 million in campaign contributions to Democrats buys you. Instead of being left to die, as it should have been, GM is now being subsidized by taxpayers

You are correct that a great transfer of wealth is taking place under this administration. But the recipients aren't big business. It's the favored interest groups that include non-productive and irresponsible individuals.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that banks make high-risk loans to individuals who had no ability to meet the terms of the mortgages. (What you don't want to give loans to blacks? Are you a racist?) Then blame the banks themselves for these disasterous policies while modifying or forgiving the loans, paid for by the taxpayers. This is not Plutocracy. This is a blatent Socialism.

Climate Change, another transfer of wealth socialist scheme.

You want to talk about Big Money interests? How about George Soros? I would love nothing more than for this prick's money to be prohibited from influencing elections, but thats not how it works.

Obamacare, rather than a sop to the industry, is specifically designed to put private insurance out of business. Government insurance will be the only coverage that remains unless Obamacare is repealed. As designed. Socialism.

Wow, you managed to get just about everything WRONG, as usual!


Anonymous said...

Wis. Senate votes to legalize concealed carry

DINESH RAMDE, Associated Press
Updated 07:57 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public places, but not in police stations, courthouse and other specifically exempted locations

Coldtype said...

"Corporate contributions are protected free speech. "

Therein is the problem. People speak, think, and feel. Actual living people also suffer the real consequences that result from the decisions and priorities of those with effective access to the levers of power. Corporations on the other hand are not people but legal fictions that exist for a single purpose: extracting the surplus value, i.e the wealth created by actual human beings and transferring this to shareholders. Corporations were given the rights of human beings but without the responsibilities.

"Unions have bought off more elections in this country than any corporation could ever hope to"

You are a deluded fool, perhaps beyond hope but it's worth a try. Unions are on life-support in this country having seen membership eroded to less than 12% from a height of nearly 40% back before the US off-shored its industrial capacity to Asia. This has been the culmination of decades of attacks on organized labor stretching back to 1935 when workers won the right to organize and bargain collectively with the passage of the Wagner Act under the FDR administration. Capital scored its first success with the passage of the near union-busting Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and it has moved from strength to strength ever since. The middle class developed in the US thanks to unions and the middle class has been on the ropes since unions, and the manufacturing capacity that sustained them, have been decimated in Capital's pursuit of ever higher returns (concentrated in ever fewer hands). From what planet of delusion do you reside to believe that unions at their current state of destitution have any force in America's thoroughly bought-and-paid-for political system?

I'll address the rest of your delusions in my next post.

Anonymous said... Corporate contributions are protected free speech

HoleWipe: Therein is the problem

No, it’s not a “problem”. It’s called Liberty. Unless of course you are a fascist, then it is indeed a “problem”. But that’s not how we do it here in the US. There’s an island about 90 miles from Florida where they don’t allow such free speech, you might find it more suitable to your tastes, so you just go ahead and have yourself a nice swim! Send a postcard and let us know how you’re doing, ok?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment.
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”

The majority opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)'s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie. Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Kennedy also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and … wait for it … blogs!

You operate one of those, do you not? But as a typical leftist, you shoot yourself in the foot here, if left to your own devices.


Anonymous said...

HoleWipe, as much as I enjoy instructing you on the finer points of Liberty and Freedom there are a couple of things we need to clear up before the next lesson. You aren’t exactly the most apt pupil I have had, so I will have to engage in some remedial instruction to disabuse you of some misconceptions you hold, undoubtedly formed during your public school years and marxist indoctrination.


HoleWipe: “Remember that corporations exist for the sole purpose of returning a profit for its shareholders above all other concerns

Categorically False

This is laughable really, since there are thousands of non-profit Corporations, ostensibly including your current employer the City of Chicago.

HoleWipe: “Corporations were given the rights of human beings but without the responsibilities

Categorically False

Corporations may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, incur debt, and have ownership over property. Entities with legal personality may also be subject to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of tax


Anonymous said...

Corporations allow one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes. As a Chicago Police officer, or in YOUR case someone holding the job of, your pension is invested in corporations.

Corporations improve our lives immeasurably. They build the weapon systems that defend American freedom. They invest in research that results in new life-saving medicines. They develop new technologies that improve scientific research, communications, transportation safety, environmental improvements, space exploration, energy innovation and much more. Mom & Pop operations can't do that.

The concept of a legal person is now central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system. The notion of corporate personhood has roots in the early history of the republic.

In 1790, John Marshall, a private attorney and a veteran of the Continental Army, represented the board of the College of William and Mary, in litigation that required him to defend that corporation's right to reorganize itself. You may recognize the name John Marshall as there is a law school in our fair city named after him.

Thomas Jefferson claimed in his autobiography that he had a hand in the reorganization. His main reason for the reorganization was to move the college from a curriculum rooted in theology to a curriculum rooted in science, fine arts, and languages.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in another such matter, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Daniel Webster was the advocate for Dartmouth. He concluded his argument in the following emotional fashion, directly addressed to that same John Marshall, then serving as Chief Justice:

"Sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak; it is in your hands! I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. You may put it out. But if you do, you must carry through your work! You must extinguish, one after another, all those great lights of science which, for more than a century, have thrown their radiance over our land. It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet, there are those who love it"

At this point, the Chief Justice is said to have become teary. The following year, he read from the bench the court's decision in that matter.

The key paragraph in the decision is as follows:

"The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court"


Coldtype said...

No, it’s not a “problem”. It’s called Liberty. Unless of course you are a fascist, then it is indeed a “problem”.

You raise ignorance to an art form. I'm truly impressed.

You are correct that a great transfer of wealth is taking place under this administration. But the recipients aren't big business.

JP Morgan/Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Exxon/Moble, General Electric, Boeing, Lockeed-Martin... between the bailouts and the indefinite war state no sector of our society has enjoyed greater public subsidy than the behemoths noted above. Just for shits and giggles kindly explain to me how the Wall Street bailouts of 2008 do not qualify as a wealth transfer.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that banks make high-risk loans to individuals who had no ability to meet the terms of the mortgages. (What you don't want to give loans to blacks? Are you a racist?)

Ah yes, this chestnut from the Tea Party lunatics is still around I see. This is the part where the global financial collapse of ’07/’08 is laid at the feet of irresponsible black and brown people taking out loans the government “forced” the banks to give them.

You colossal dumbass.

You’re attempting here to draw a causal relationship between the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) signed into law by the Carter administration in 1977 which officially outlawed the racially discriminatory practice of red-lining and the financial collapse thirty fucking years later. Here’s how one astute responder on another blog responded to this canard:

The hundreds of acres of housing in the suburbs of Las Vegas, Phoenix, LA, etc were not subject to CRA, the blocks of condos in Miami, Las Vegas, San Diego, etc were not subject to CRA. And this massively overbuilt and over priced housing boom did not benefit at all from CRA.

CRA applied to banks, yet banks weren't the driving force in toxic mortgage origination, though they got stuck with them because they were involved in the securitization. Before 1999 they couldn't have even done this, so the real driving force for this was the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act restrictions on banks.

So if you want to blame some legislation for the financial meltdown, how about blaming the 1999 removal of Glass-Steagall instead of legislation which was designed to prevent banks 'redlining'.

Care to respond?

Obamacare, rather than a sop to the industry, is specifically designed to put private insurance out of business.

How does a program which mandates that people, even the young and healthy, purchase insurance policies from private, for-profit health insurance companies under the penalty of IRS sanction for refusal be in any way a threat to “put private insurance out of business”? Do you even think before you write or are you only capable of regurgitating Faux News gibberish?

I’ll attempt to address the rest of your endless delusions in my next post.

Coldtype said...

This is laughable really, since there are thousands of non-profit Corporations, ostensibly including your current employer the City of Chicago.

First off Short Bus, the city of Chicago is a municipality organized (ostensibly) to serve the needs of the public within its jurisdiction, it is not a corporation in the sense that GE is organized around the single purpose of profit return for shareholders. Is the state of Illinois a corporation? The United States? Please stop pulling shit out of your ass and throwing it on my blog. Think then write.

Corporations were originally designed as a temporary arraignment to accomplish some lager task such as building a bridge or digging a canal then, upon completion of the project, they were dissolved. The state gave sanction to their charter and had the authority to dissolve that charter (still does in fact). After the legal fiction of "personhood" was granted to corporations, however, an unchained beast has been unleashed upon the republic which will devour us all if not cut down to size and reoriented to serve the needs of the nation above the next quarterly profits--the rest of us be damned. The off-shoring of the US manufacturing capacity, and the garrisoning of the entire globe with nearly one thousand military bases does not serve our interest in the least but makes a miniscule fraction of the population fabulously wealthy--the very cohort that owns our political system. That has to change.

Coldtype said...

Perhaps Dr. Michael Hudson can talk some sense into you. If you’re incapable of grasping what he explains here then I really cannot afford to waste any more time with these exchanges because I’m not running a remedial learning service here.

Anonymous said...

The problem with our conservative friend here Coldie is that he shallows that junk about Amerika being a level playing field. Folks like he have allowed the rich to control this so-called free market society. A system that is not free nor fair.

Meeting with the rich fatcats of Wall Street is proof they control society no matter who is president.


Coldtype said...

It's the mainstream media's function to keep the rubes dumbfounded Lefty. The performance of my garrulous visitor is testimony enough.

Anonymous said...

HoleWipe & LeftIsDepressed,

It is a funny thing to behold, your ”strategy”. I offer to you the wisdom of the greatest legal minds in the history of Man, and you scoff like knaves. I present to you the enduring words of our Founders themselves, and you posit a long-since discredited notion from last century’s madmen in response. All the while patting yourselves on the back for it.

Do you really believe that the unsupported conjecture from a “Dr. Michael Hudson” (whoever the hell that is!) matters when we have the precedent, facts and evidence from the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster and John Marshall? Oh, but of course you do – you’re leftists!

So perfect was the document our Founders produced – the US Constitution – that adjustment has been required only 27 times in over 2 and quarter centuries (17 if you deduct the Bill of Rights). And what has your side tallied over years? Failed state after abject failure.

Communist countries in the twentieth century included Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. So, how did that all work out for you?

Prepare for your next lesson. And I might suggest that you study well, your grades are currently in the gutter.


Anonymous said...

No one is saying for profit corporations should be banned,that would be a good thing, just that they should be fair.

As I tried to explain, we need a FAIR market system, not a FREE market system. Sure it means a little less profit for the rich, but it is in the best interest of the people.

As for your mention of the forefathers. Well, most of them were filthy rich and owned slaves, so their motives are self explainatory.

I will say once more to you that the American political system is for the rich and those in control and not the working class. And yes my friend, there is a working class.


Coldtype said...

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson

Just so we’re clear, are you at all aware that the Founders were children of the Enlightenment? So they were well versed in the works of Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith who wrote extensively about the dangers of unregulated Capital. The present state of corporations is Adam Smith’s---and the Founder’s---nightmare realized. There’s a reason the founders didn’t grant corporations the status of “personhood” in the Constitution: it’s a bat-shit insane idea. When attempting to establish a democratic republic a guaranteed path to the undermining of the project is to give the same rights to unaccountable private tyrannies, i.e corporations, that you grant to individual human beings of flesh and blood. One would soon use its accumulated wealth and influence to purchase the levers of power whereas the other would be reduced to serfdom before long. Since we’ve long forgotten this lesson we’re nearly there...

As for your question regarding Michael Hudson, find out for yourself.

Anonymous said...

You truly are a sad, sad individual. It’s true that falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies are the stock in trade of the Left. But this is low, even from you.

It did not pass the smell test to begin with, but some rudimentary fact-checking quickly revealed your little Jefferson “quote” to be 100% patently FALSE. Various similar versions of your nonsense quote have been thoroughly investigated and discarded

Read it and weep, cocksucker


Apparently, pretending at law enforcement isn’t enough to satisfy your sociopathic tendencies. So you add pseudo-intellectualism to your résumé. This outrageous fabrication may have even slipped past a less experienced opponent, but you will quickly learn that when dealing with me, you will be caught out and called out every time.


Anonymous said...


Are you dense? Wait, nevermind. That was a rhetorical question.

”As for your mention of the forefathers. Well, most of them were filthy rich and owned slaves, so their motives are self explainatory”

You honestly think that the ideas from some of the greatest human minds (our Founders) should be discarded simply because an abhorrent institution, Slavery, was not abolished during their era? So then you would just as soon discard Plato, Aristotle and a host of other philosophical luminaries, correct?

Slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

What did the Founders really think about Slavery?

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it"
-- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil"
-- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free"
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

"Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves"
-- James Madison, Letter to R. H. Lee, July 17, 1785 (Madison, 1865, I, page 161)

Try to do some research before you criticize those whom you aren’t fit to polish the boots of. Or in other words, go get your shine box!


Anonymous said...

If we abolish Irish Welfare we get rid of Coldy and Lefty.

Coldtype said...

Anon, I can't carry your dumbass any further. My back hurts and this is now getting embarrassing, though I'm still curious (against my better judgement) about your specific objections to the issues raised by Michael Hudson.

Anonymous said...


You want my opinion on Michael Hudson? Fine. Let’s take it from the top.

He served as a Chief economic advisor to the Dennis Kucinich campaign (strike #1). Goofy, UFO-seeing dwarf man Kucinich. The same guy who wants to abolish capital punishment, ban handguns, defund our military and create a “Department of Peace” (lol!). Also, he holds famously anti-Semitic views. He was one of only 5 members of Congress voting AGAINST a resolution stating Israel has the right to defend itself.

Hudson himself is a contributor to CounterPunch (strike #2), a notoriously leftwing anti-Semitic website (beginning to see a trend here?). The same “publication” that provides a forum to certified lunatics like Cindy Sheehan. CounterPunch co-founder Alex Cockburn was suspended from the Village Voice for accepting a $10,000 grant from an Arab studies organization in 1982. The level of anti-Jewish poppycock that is displayed on this website has not been seen since Germany circa the 1930s.

Now that we have established his disrepute, let us examine his article that has you so worked up. The best deceptions often contain a kernel of truth, and such is the case with Hudson.

the most reasonable understanding of why the 2008 bank crisis did not require a vast public subsidy for Wall Street occurred at Monday’s Republican presidential debate on June 13, by none other than Congressional Tea Party leader Michele Bachmann

Bachmann opposed TARP as do I and other libertarians. It would seem that Hudson and I are in substantial agreement on this issue. But a golden opportunity is missed when Hudson fails to mention the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Sub-prime Scam – the powderkeg which ignited this whole catastrophe to begin with.

Hudson ambles towards the obvious at one point, but just can’t seem to (or doesn't want to)connect the dots:

Meanwhile, the economy is still suffering from the Obama administration’s failure to alleviate the debt overhead by seriously making banks write down junk mortgages to reflect actual market values and the capacity to pay

Then he reveals his socialist designs:

So the great opportunity to serve the public interest by taking over banks gone broke was missed

As I mentioned earlier the GM nationalization was a blatent sop to the UAW. And so Hudson would have the US government taking over industry, taking over banks, just nationalizing everything in sight. (strike #3)

Then he goes completely off the reservation with a montage of predictable leftist canards about Social Security, infrastructure, social spending and the like.

Hudson tries mightily to convince readers that the solutions to economic crisis may be found in raising the debt ceiling, spending, nationalization and other doomed socialist policies. But I have been studying these issues for too long to fall for this nonsense. Bachmann knows, as do I, that when a leftist gets close enough to pay you a compliment, make sure to double check for your wallet on the way out the door.

Overall, I would give Hudson an “F” for intellectual dishonesty.


Anonymous said...

Corporations are the lifeblood of our nation. I stated earlier and it bears repeating:

The concept of a legal person is now central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system

You will no sooner “revoke their charter” then you will grow a 3rd arm. Stop living in the fantasy world and join us in reality. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Even if you miraculously managed to revoke the charter of every US corporation, do you realize what would happen? Think for a moment. The subsequent destruction of our economy would make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

You bemoan the flight of manufacturing to overseas. Yet you would choose a policy course so foolish that it would have every venture, enterprise and industry scrambling for the borders.

That is the way of the Left though. Act first – think later.


Anonymous said...

Obamacare is designed specifically to put private insurance out of business. As intended.

Fact: 30% of American businesses will drop employer provided health insurance as a benefit when Obamacare kicks in, in 2014 [see below]

Do you realize what happens to a company when they lose 30% of their business in one fell swoop?? They go bust.

These individuals will then be forced to go to the government "exchanges" to get health insurance

Eventually, the only insurance left will be of the government variety if Obamacare is not repealed. Fortunately, there is still time to stop this nightmare.

June 6, 2011
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.



Coldtype said...

Your strikes #1 & 2 against are in fact major positives once one accounts for propaganda.

Kucinich saved the city of Cleveland tens of millions when major lenders attempted an earlier version of the financial blackmail that resulted in the massive bailouts of ’08/’09. They threatened to lower the city’s bond rating if Kucinich didn’t cave and he told them to go fuck themselves. Here’s Hudson’s brief discussion of the episode:

My own view of ratings agencies is based in no small part on the story that Dennis Kucinich told me about the time when he was mayor of Cleveland, Ohio. The banks and some of their leading clients had set their eyes on privatizing the city’s publicly owned electric company. The privatizers wanted buy it on credit (with the tax-deductible interest charges depriving the government of collecting income tax on their takings), and sharply raise prices to pay for exorbitant executive salaries, outrageous underwriting fees to the banks, stock options for the big raiders, heavy interest charges to the banks and a nice free lunch to the ratings agencies. The banks asked Mayor Kucinich to sell them the bank, promising to help him be governor if he would sell out his constituency.
Mr. Kucinich said “No.” So the banks brought in their bullyboys, the ratings agencies. They threatened to downgrade Cleveland’s rating, so that it could not roll over the loan balances that it ran as a normal course with the banks. “Let us take your power company or we will wreck your city’s finances,” they said in effect.
Mr. Kucinich again said no. The banks carried out their threat – but the mayor had saved the city from having its incomes squeezed by predatory privatization charges. In due course its voters sent Mr. Kucinich to Congress, where he subsequently became an important presidential candidate.

By your logic Kucinich should have done a Rich Daley and handed over the city’s assets to the privatizers. How’s that worked out? So, “strike one” is looking more like an RBI to me. I certainly have issues with Kucinich, however, and not because he’s too much of a “leftist” but because he wasn’t strong or principled enough to standup to Obama on single payer... but that’s an issue for another day. On to “strike two”...

Hudson himself is a contributor to CounterPunch (strike #2), a notoriously leftwing anti-Semitic website (beginning to see a trend here?). The same “publication” that provides a forum to certified lunatics like Cindy Sheehan.

Counterpunch is anti-semitic? Really? Hosting authors who make the banal observation that Israel routinely violates the sovereignty of its neighbors, practices naked discrimination against its citizens of Arab or Palestinian descent, has been in material violation of the Forth Geneva Conventions regarding the (illegally) Occupied Territories since 1967, and, having refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is in possession of an undeclared, illegal nuclear weapons arsenal for which it should be under sanction, is hardly evidence of anti-semitism. You’re confusing anti-semitism with anti-zionism which is a common error of the ill-informed. You see Zionism is racism always. If you oppose colonialism, the concept of racial superiority, religious fundamentalism, and xenophobia then naturally you stand in opposition to Zionism... as do many Jews. So “strike two” is looking more like a triple.

Coldtype said...

Bachmann opposed TARP as do I and other libertarians. It would seem that Hudson and I are in substantial agreement on this issue. But a golden opportunity is missed when Hudson fails to mention the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Sub-prime Scam – the powderkeg which ignited this whole catastrophe to begin with.

It was this line that convinced me to continue this discussion. Somewhere in there is at least a spark of intelligence struggling to emerge from beneath the mountain of propaganda from which it has been buried. Your instinct to oppose the bailout was correct, however, you fail to grasp that Fannie/Freddie was part and parcel of the bailout itself. Instead of allowing the market to flush the bad debt out of the system and for bubble-inflated asset prices (home values) to return to a level that reflected economic reality, Bush/Obama put the toxic debt formerly on the balance sheets of the Wall Street zombies onto the public’s balance sheet via Fannie/Freddie. Note that the taxpayers paid the Wall Street hustlers 100 cents on the dollar for these assets which had in reality lost 80% or more of their value thus recapitalizing the crooks who gamed the system instead of letting them burn. Then the Obama Fed provided ZIRP loans to these hustlers with which they could further enrich themselves through interest rate arbitrage games. Re-read the Hudson articles more closely for you’ve missed his point entirely. More later...

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish. Several of the contributors to Counterpunch are Jewish, including one of its founders, as well as, the man (whose name I cannot recall) is one of the founders of the peace movement in Israel.

Dennis Kucinich is one of the few true progressives in the U.S. Congress. He attempted to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush II but the phony-baloney progressive Nancy Pelosi put the brakes on that one. She of the multimillionaires club and private Speaker jet fame.

Once more our conservative friend allows himself to be a defender of the rich, not realizing that he is being used. Unless he is rich, then he is just trying to maintain the status quo.


Anonymous said...

Progressive is the new word for Communist

Coldtype said...

Have you new terms for "debt peonage" and "neo-feudalism"?

Anonymous said...

Coldtype said...
Have you new terms for "debt peonage" and "neo-feudalism"?

4:01 PM

Yes,middle class or working class America.

Coldtype said...

Thank you. Someone gets it.

Rue St. Michel said...

Coldy - It looks like “” cleaned your clock!

I don't agree with the little bit of name calling but 99% of what he said is accurate.

You and LITB stand with The Almighty State - at the expense of the sovereign individual.

You're too busy fretting about conservatives, 'white privilege' and 'evil' corporations to see the forest through the trees. Your philosophy divides us, conservatism unites us. America is founded on such principles but there has been a vast Leftist scheme to whitewash and demonize those principles.

When it was shown that Thomas Jefferson had not fathered any slave children, but that story never made it on NightLine with Peter Jennings.

I sincerely appreciate you and Lefty coming over to my blog to share your commentary, but I fear you and he are both ... for lack of a better word ... lost.

I stand with the Individual; the free-born citizen and the restrained federal government that was framed by our founding fathers. To stand on the other side is to stand with tyranny.

ps. I hereby nominate “” with an honored spot among my Right Wing Death Squad. If you have a website email me at stmichelrue@yahoo.com --