ShoutWire TV

17

Shouts

Shout it

7

Bashes

Bash it

More Lies From Obama?   

   Posted by damasterwc  Promoted 54 days 22 hours ago  2147 views  editorial  

    Politics / Douchebaggery  |   Comments 15 comments  | 

  • Stumble it!
  • Facebook

Special preview for shoutwire of a blog I'm going to submit tomorrow for an internet advocacy group.





Comments

These comments in RSS.
Comment View Threshold:
avatar
damasterwc, on 1/25/2010 11:29:23 PM
Total Posts: 635, Joined: 5/30/2006
screwed up the formatting ><
 |  Comment Score: Trash  |  Edit Comment
digitalantichrist, on 1/26/2010 11:37:26 AM
Total Posts: 745, Joined: 6/24/2006
Weird, it reads like the Jan 24th email from LaRouche...

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13239


and the section "what Obama/Volker propose" bears an alarming similarity to the 23rd January article "Obama's Fake "Glass-Steagal" also from LaRouche. In fact, it IS the same article. Passing off someone else's work as your own is a bit iffy, mate.

http://larouchepac.org/node/13231


Edit - Good to see you adding an acknowledgement in there at the end, in the end, worrying that you didn't do it in the first place, though. When writing about other people being dishonest, it's best not to live in a glass house yourself, eh.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
digitalantichrist, on 1/26/2010 1:16:07 PM
Total Posts: 746, Joined: 6/24/2006
damaster, out of interest, when you say "The derivative bubble is by some estimates over a quadrillion dollars", whose estimates are these? The only source for the given estimate is Webster Tarpley, a fellow LaRouchian. So, to be pedantic, you should say "by one estimate", not "by some estimates".
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
quincy0191, on 1/26/2010 1:17:55 PM
Total Posts: 956, Joined: 4/14/2006
I'd like to see some of this sourced; a lot of claims are being made here on as yet unsubstantiated evidence.

I don't know how true it is that Obama is saying one thing and doing another; I think he's saying one thing and trying to do it, then having to severely change his plan because he's getting no bipartisan support. Basically, the Republicans are voting purely on party lines and without regard to the actual content of any bill. And while I am increasingly angry with the Democrats for being so easily pushed around, I do understand that they are trying, and it's hard to get something done when you're making all the compromises (they shouldn't be, but the Republicans won't compromise, so...). I also vehemently disagree with the GOP on many, many issues, and I'd rather have the Democrats tell me they're going to do something I want them to do and fail than have the Republicans tell me they're going to do something I don't want them to do, because they're very driven and that scares me.

Basically, I'd like more regulation on the financial practices of banks, specifically ending predatory lending. A cap on the interest rate for credit cards is probably also a good idea. And let's raise taxes on the highest earners, shrink the defense budget, hightail it out of the Middle East ASAP (start packing now), introduce more oversight into general accounting practices, and make the budget public. I want someone in the media going over every expenditure and telling me when we're overpaying for something or buying something unnecessary or whatever. A return to the gold standard may not be a bad idea either; it would stabilize the economy and temper inflation somewhat, and it might encourage more cautionary spending.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
damasterwc, on 1/26/2010 1:44:52 PM
Total Posts: 636, Joined: 5/30/2006
digitalantichrist wrote:
Weird, it reads like the Jan 24th email from LaRouche...

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13239


and the section "what Obama/Volker propose" bears an alarming similarity to the 23rd January article "Obama's Fake "Glass-Steagal" also from LaRouche. In fact, it IS the same article. Passing off someone else's work as your own is a bit iffy, mate.

http://larouchepac.org/node/13231


Edit - Good to see you adding an acknowledgement in there at the end, in the end, worrying that you didn't do it in the first place, though. When writing about other people being dishonest, it's best not to live in a glass house yourself, eh.


i always did acknowledge it... you should have bothered to read the whole article before u commented lol. i'm actually refining it further before it's published, so it will probably go out tomorrow or the next day. i'll let everyone know the location and when it goes up.

i did take four paragraphs from their article since they already did the research and analysis, and acknowledge that as such.

the value of the derivatives market is according to newsweek, $600 trillion. this is all BS figures because the value is derived from other things. so it doesn't really matter if they lost the "value" however the actual fraud that is taking place is they are using this phony value for capitalization purposes. in fact, the banks have been bankrupt for quite some time, and have been using derivatives to hide their bankruptcy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/164591

however, there are OTC and non reported derivatives transactions originating out of london and the middle east that are not included in this article. it is therefore impossible to know the true size of the market, but some estimates put it at over 1 quadrillion, and some even over 2 quadrillion.

 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
damasterwc, on 1/26/2010 1:51:40 PM
Total Posts: 637, Joined: 5/30/2006
quincy0191 wrote:
I'd like to see some of this sourced; a lot of claims are being made here on as yet unsubstantiated evidence.

I don't know how true it is that Obama is saying one thing and doing another; I think he's saying one thing and trying to do it, then having to severely change his plan because he's getting no bipartisan support. Basically, the Republicans are voting purely on party lines and without regard to the actual content of any bill. And while I am increasingly angry with the Democrats for being so easily pushed around, I do understand that they are trying, and it's hard to get something done when you're making all the compromises (they shouldn't be, but the Republicans won't compromise, so...). I also vehemently disagree with the GOP on many, many issues, and I'd rather have the Democrats tell me they're going to do something I want them to do and fail than have the Republicans tell me they're going to do something I don't want them to do, because they're very driven and that scares me.

Basically, I'd like more regulation on the financial practices of banks, specifically ending predatory lending. A cap on the interest rate for credit cards is probably also a good idea. And let's raise taxes on the highest earners, shrink the defense budget, hightail it out of the Middle East ASAP (start packing now), introduce more oversight into general accounting practices, and make the budget public. I want someone in the media going over every expenditure and telling me when we're overpaying for something or buying something unnecessary or whatever. A return to the gold standard may not be a bad idea either; it would stabilize the economy and temper inflation somewhat, and it might encourage more cautionary spending.


you have some good views on war, etc., but you are, as many people, still living under false axioms when it comes to economics. there's nothing wrong with government spending. there is, however, something wrong with private control of sovereign currency.

let me ask you this: what exactly does gold have to do with maglev rail, spaceships, or moon bases?
it has nothing to do with it, therefore it shouldn't be used to ration their development. there is no reason to ration economic development. there is, however, a need to stop a bad business practice that prevents credit from getting out to the real economy.

you are right that we do need some body of power to stop the abuse of consumers at banks with credit cards, but our problems are deeper than just that as i point out in my article. that type agency is needed but will not stop this crippling behavior. in fact, unless we properly deal with the main problem, the problem of bankruptcy of the banks, nothing will change. the only way to achieve this is to go back to FDR's glass-steagall standard. nothing else will work, because nothing else will properly deal with the bankruptcy issue. only glass-steagall can sort out valid and invalid debts.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
digitalantichrist, on 1/26/2010 1:56:22 PM
Total Posts: 747, Joined: 6/24/2006
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to the acknowledgement. I did read the whole thing, but as you pointed out, your formatting sucks and so I may have missed it due to that. That said, your acknowledgement still falls short of acceptable standards considering you basically lifted a whole page and inserted it into your own work, failed to inform the reader that it was a block quote (and thus gave the appearance that it was your own work), and failed to credit the author. I'll let it slide, though ;)

But, as to the more important matter. The quadrillions, and these estimates. So, no-one but Tarpley, then?

Edit. As I said to you in another thread, its interesting to see that LaRouche has finally come on board with the decade long requests of the ICFI and demanded the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. It's just a shame that it took him up until the collapse of the global markets to realise this was needed.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
quincy0191, on 1/26/2010 2:20:05 PM
Total Posts: 957, Joined: 4/14/2006
@damasterwc: If I trusted the government to actually spend its money funding important projects like that, then I wouldn't want a return to the gold standard. But I don't trust the government to spend their money wisely and responsibly, I trust them to throw it away on meaningless and stupid projects because it'll get them re-elected. There is no reason to ration development, but with unlimited funds, there is also the capacity for unlimited waste, and we're seeing a lot of waste. The gold standard would force our country to actually back up its expenditures with bullion (it's not about private control, it's about the government's gold reserves, which are public) and curb waste by curbing spending. It would also stop the fake wealth that is created when our money is backed up by nothing, which you pointed out as problematic. It doesn't have to be gold, either; it could be tin, chalk, or apple pies. The point would be that our money actually has value tied not to the strength of our economy but to an actual good, and would therefore stop its value from fluctuating wildly. Stability is good in the absence of growth, and I'm not convinced our economy is growing.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
digitalantichrist, on 1/26/2010 2:33:22 PM
Total Posts: 748, Joined: 6/24/2006
^ Quincy is actually on to something that Phillip Snowden and Neville Chamberlain understood when they were Chancellors of the Exchequer back in the 30s. They dropped Britain out of the gold standard and were thus able to pay off our war debts with a devalued currency. At the time it massively pissed off other nations, because we were 'cheating'. The result, Britain pulled out of the Great Depression faster than its neighbours.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
damasterwc, on 1/27/2010 4:18:14 PM
Total Posts: 638, Joined: 5/30/2006
it's up: http://www.anewwayforward.org/blogs/2010/01/27/how-moral-can-obamas-li
es-be/

your right, quincy. there's a team at stanford studying physical economics and they want to peg the value of the dollar to national production. that way they can have the best of both worlds.

@DAC - those paragraphs got edited out because i couldn't locate those quotes on the internet. it's my suspecion that the author is french and wrote the article in english. those are french papers and there are no english sections so they probably translated the quotes. anyway we couldn't use them. how do u like it in its final form? i wanted to leave a cite to it but that got edited out because we did away with the paragraph that had the citation. i'm asking them now to include the note at the end again. anyway, check it out, it's improved a lot.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
Comments per page: 10

  • 1
  • 2
  • Forward
  • Page 1 of 2

Post your comments

 

Your Message:

This system allows you to use html-like tags in replacement of HTML. These tags are easier to use and are widely supported on messageboard systems.

HTML DISABLED
CODE DISABLED

 

You must be a registered user in order to post comments.
Please sign in or create a new account.

XxoozerobulshoyDockZaWolvenHockeyGodVaMpIrEF00DDeadmanspointJustXquincy0191SteelyDanBebichanReagannodnarb232001LifeRiotFidoAdamnesssailirish7ThisisJeffKhramGodsSontimekeeperRomanov
Shoutwire channels
Back at The Batcave
 1 views
 15 shouts
 0 bashes
posted by GaaaaaH
Eyes Never Lies
 1 views
 15 shouts
 3 bashes
posted by kailashk
Guys
 0 views
 15 shouts
 0 bashes
posted by AliceC
Happy V.D.
 0 views
 15 shouts
 1 bashes
posted by RiotHero

FlikThe Beginning (day One)
body { font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; width: 545px; } div.mine p { text-align: justify; } .avat { text-align: center; float: left; margin: 0px; margin-right: 10px; border: 2px solid black; } Date: The Beginning (day one) Current mood: Creative Listening to: Phil Collins - Another Day in Paradise Posted by:THE_ONE After having been harassed interminably by all the other deities, I have finally deigned t...

DeadmanspointAbout The Seldom Things
Now, before I go any further let me make the observation that I shall not follow the title nor the description of this piece.As much as needs be served by a common comma.  Or a stripe begging for another one.  In my journeys, as seldom as they are, I have found a common virtue.  That virtue is a simple pattern... But all seize it, and all know it well.  For it is the definition before the act.  It is why and who and when and that t...