John Howard is my new hero.

[Fuxsiloh]

Don't know where to start, but fuck it, I will give it a shot anyway! :)

First up the press is generally more right of centre than left. In AUS, we have a nationally distributed newspaper called The Australian. Following the recent federal election, which saw The Greens Party (fairly leftish party by today's standards) get its best ever result, the paper led with a frontpage editorial declaring that it intended to "destroy" the Greens.

They stated: "We believe he (Greens Leader) and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box." We do not have a liberal media. You do not have a liberal media. If you believe this, even in the slightest, then you have been lied to by someone and I would be demanding my money back from whatever institution or media outlet that delivered this nonsense to you.

You are right on the "both sides of our political system are corrupt" but  really wrong on attributing the Democrats as the cause of your recession. To explain I would need to give you some background which I touched on in the previous post to Gardner.

First up, neoliberalism (or whatever you refer to it over there, capitalism) is a conservative monster. This is lifted straight from wiki:

"Neoliberalism describes a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the corporate sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state."

Reagan started this in the 1980s. He used it as a way to destroy the unions and to good effect. Back in the 1980s this little ogre called communism was still around and many of the traditionally left-wing parties were founded on basic socialist principles (public health, education, essential assets like electricity etc). Reagan and other right-wing conservative governments around the western world adopted the neoliberal, free-market approach in opposition to these left-wing parties. When Communism died in 1991, the left-wing parties effectively abandoned the socialist ideology and the neoliberal model became bipartisan. This is explains Clinton and his free-trade arrangements. In AUS we had a Labor government and our Prime Minister (who was an old Union secretary) adopted very similar measures. This period saw a massive "shift to the right" from all sides of politics.

Let me put it this way. I don't know how it works in the US, but in AUS we have the two major parties, Labor and Liberal. Traditionally Labor has represented workers and Liberal business. I assume it is similar in the US with Democrats and Republicans. So who do you think benefits when tariffs are removed and free-trade is adopted everywhere? Business - your boys.

Are you really trying to suggest that if Reagan was, for some freaky reason, still president during the 1990s, he would not have adopted similar policies to Clinton? I think you would have found that they would have been even more extreme. My politics professor once said to me "both parties are essentially on the same trajectory, just one will get you there faster".

Face up to it, since the late 1980s it has been your (conservative) song we have been dancing to and now we are in a world of shit. I should also point out, I am not a liberal. I traverse all political grounds trying to find the most optimal way of doing things. One thing I know for certain is the way things are being run now is a joke.

In summary, there is no left-wing, socialist, communist or whatever else you choose to call it these days in politics (not in any position of power anyway), they are all right of centre (your territory). You should read the book by David Knight called Beyond Right and Left and  move beyond the false dichotomy which your daddy and your granddaddy's and your great granddaddy followed and forge a new political landscape. You say you hate Obama policies, but fuck, they sound a bit different and I must say decent. I am not saying different is always better but given the shit you have had to swallow following Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr and the trajectory into self-destruction they have placed you on, you may as well experiment with something different - what do you have to lose, you are fucked in the arse anyway (cheer Reagan and the Republican party!)

So next time you stumble across a republican, punch them in the face for me and if you stumble across a democrat, punch them and call them a republican :)

[Excarkun]

First off I better get this out there because I know we deal with Retards here.. Duhh I?m STILL not playing.. Ok..

They stated: "We believe he (Greens Leader) and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box." We do not have a liberal media. You do not have a liberal media. If you believe this, even in the slightest, then you have been lied to by someone and I would be demanding my money back from whatever institution or media outlet that delivered this nonsense to you.

After reading this statement, it looks to me as if you re giving proof that your Media is bias therefore this must be a Sarcastic remark. But if not, I will state again ours (the U.S.) is. Read any major new paper or watch CNN or the old major networks national news broadcast of CBS, NBC and ABC. They are mostly Liberal but you got to understand majority of American audience is liberal and uneducated on our Political U.S. System. So most are lazy and rely on what others tell them, in addition that would be the Liberal media. Or if you?re on the right wing you read Wall Street or Watch Fox new, as you can see very small News market for this, so not many Americans are right wingers. This is all common sense here in states, you your self  at times always seem to find quotes in Boston Globe or other major liberal paper?s all the time and share them. By the way I took Political Science classes(more then one) years ago(1993-1996 before marriage and 15 year factory job, which I was a Union Rep.) at local University and my instructors were by the way admittedly strong liberals. Nevertheless they did their best to teach us how the system works. So if you?re a Corporation conglomerate and want polices past in state or Federal govt to cause or help your business to make millions what political party you want working for you, that you know has more uneducated voters voting for it year after year? You got it Democrats. Furthermore if the leader of that party has good charisma(Clinton sure did) he can get past all my fuck everybody but me and my interest Polices past in congress and fuck over more middle class uneducated voters that voted for them. That is the person I want pushing my agendas that normally would get shot down if pushed by republicans.

You are right on the "both sides of our political system are corrupt" but  really wrong on attributing the Democrats as the cause of your recession. To explain I would need to give you some background which I touched on in the previous post to Gardner.
Are you really trying to suggest that if Reagan was, for some freaky reason, still president during the 1990s, he would not have adopted similar policies to Clinton? I think you would have found that they would have been even more extreme. My politics professor once said to me "both parties are essentially on the same trajectory, just one will get you there faster".

No, your point is so reaching, I didn?t see any Reagan polices that encourage companies to still sell goods to American people but have everything done at super cheap wages and overhead cost savings by outsourcing. These policies where ONLY pushed by CLINTON and Democrat cronies. Furthermore claimed at the time this in long run would not cause a economic collapse of the economy, but it did. But with your logic its OK, why because a Dead man really made Bill Clinton do it? Or somehow might as well fuck over the economy because Reagan was in office years ago and had different views on how to run things, but even tho he had no Free trade polices, guess he Brain washed him to do it?  Again Reagan didn?t pass those Polices to cause our current recession or Daddy Bushe?s, Mr.Carters, Nixon?s and President Fords.
Furthermore I got No idea why "Reagan" is even brought up, for one he is dead. SO I can only assume you might of grew up in a home that despised him? Or you where taught by a hard core liberal in school that also loathed him, and has you convinced he is the root of American political and economic evils. Really get real this is clearly not the case.
It all boils down Again to how our system is setup and how lobbyist can get their wants by bribe through use of loop holes like buying up massive memoir books and such to get our ?Republic? leaders to do their bidding. Even the ones that Claim to be representatives of the liberal middle class,Union somewhat supported, elderly and lower class American voters, Democrats. Yes, that Simple.


Oh I bet again your going to label me now as a Republican because you also fall for the 2 party system Retard-crap, if you?re not on one side or bash it, you got to be on other. WRONG. I?m what you stated to Gardner, I hate the system (game) it needs to be changed.

[quote author=Fuxsiloh
You say you hate Obama policies, but fuck, they sound a bit different and I must say decent. I am not saying different is always better but given the shit you have had to swallow following Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr and the trajectory into self-destruction they have placed you on, you may as well experiment with something different - what do you have to lose, you are fucked in the arse anyway (cheer Reagan and the Republican party!)
[/quote]

Again you fall right back into the right or left party system that one side is always right and other is evil bullshit. I brought up Mr. Obama only, to point out that even him, Again Claimed Representative of the Mass of American liberal middle class, Unions, lower classes and even elderly is also a Sell out.
That he Went out of his way to not only fuck middle class and lower income working classes on their wages/salaries by forcing them to pay for health care insurance to give insurance companies more Profits. Also to assist the Major Expense of health care insurance companies by taking out the elderly off their Insurance polices. You do understand that the Elderly need of health care, as a group of people is greater then yours or mine day to day. Furthermore in the long run the cost is more to treat them then they would actually pay back into a Health insurance policy. So how does Obama fix this, simple make the middle class working classes tax dollars pay for that health coverage for the elderly, with government health care. Hell it roc?s I never hear about people leaving Canada and come to American for health care,
No never.
Or form other countries; Nope their Government health care is so much better.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/perspectives-on-the-european-health-care-systems

In fact Americans are always flocking to these countries for it,
Yes I?m being very Sarcastic with that last statement, it simply doesn?t happen.

http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/03/canadians-running-to-us-for-health-care/
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Sounds wonderful lets put our voters (elderly) through this hell.

Mr. Obama is No different then the others. He only made Government Health care to save Health insurance Companies Millions not to really cover the uninsured, How can you NOT see thought the bullshit. If you can not or don?t want to and want to blame dead (the other party?s) leaders your still controlled by the media liberal or that 2 party system that always has their guy is always right and never NEVER WRONG and it is the other guy is why shit is fucked.         GIVE ME A BREAK.
You can have him for FREE. I'm sue he would never do anything underhanded to help out a fellow major corporation that wants to make millions with tax dollar expenses or bail out your major banks. Take HIM..

If you ever come to the States to visit, since I get that you really dislike Reagan, again not sure where this comes from. I?m sure you can find an average older liberal voter that lived in the 80?s that would love to bash him with you, Also note that the low education how the 2 party system works to encourages this type of bashing of the other.

Notice how this time I didn?t have to defend my dislikes of Bush and his polices, you only defended the liberals.. hmm you clam your not liberal???  

[Gardner Denver]

15 year factory job, which I was a Union Rep.

Freaking unions <spit>  Don't even get me started....

[Excarkun]

Unions at times are a Necessary EVIL.

You don't know how often I wanted people Fired in my plant I had to Represent that where such lazy non-working, drug using, leaching assholes. But it seemed that the Foremen where just as lazy or just plan Retarded to get it right or I was too good. I'm more sure the Sup's or Foremen where just as bright as Duhh is, so don't take much effort to save an idiots job. But trust me, in closed doors and one on one I would tell the Dip-shits(Bosses) how to get it right and get rid of the wast so I wouldn't have a case and they would still fuck it up.

[Fuxsiloh]

Did you even read my post? You have put a bunch of questions in there which are answered in my post. I do not see how this exercise is helpful if you are not able to read what I have written. I have clearly explained how Reagan adopted neoliberalism in the 1980s. You just need to accept that conservative agenda won in the late 80s, early 90s (when communism died). All the shit you are swallowing today is attributable to them. I mean, if you had the left agenda win out in the 80s or 90s then we may have a different set of problems to deal with. But that does not change the fact that the Reagan led conservative agenda of neoliberal economics has fucked us in a major way. Now every democrat has shifted to the right and adopted similar policies. I am not defending them, merely pointing out that they are adopting republican policy. You are politically naive if you think that Reagan would not have adopted similar policies to Clinton in the 90s. You are right, he may not have been able to because he wasn't as good as Clinton, but they would have been there sooner or later. Maybe Bush Jr would have sold them to the public, fuck knows.

You say liberals are uneducated voters but then say the educational system is liberal... do you not see any inconsistency in this statement? If your theory of the world is made up of conspiracies it is probably wrong.
Shit isn't that complicated; people, politicians, corporations act out of self-interest (for the most part).

I don't know enough about your health care system over there to comment, but don't you need health insurance just to get health cover? I mean, do you or did you ever have just basic cover - available to anyone? Everything I have ever read about your health system in the US points out that it is one of the most inefficient models in operation. (Read as: your health care system sucks and needs to be completely overhauled - I suspect maybe Obama is trying to tweak a broken system, adopt the one we have here in AUS - it rocks). Also, you should generally try and avoid blog sites as a way of reinforcing your argument. You could setup a blog site and someone could refer to you, but it doesn't mean it is correct or even accurate.

I am going to leave it on this point. If you don't have a good grasp of history you will have no hope in understanding modern politics. If you can't see how Reagan is involved in what is happening today then you need to brush up on your history.

PS - Bush started the bailout after spending all the surplus he was left from Clinton. Also, a union's power is limited (generally to the sovereign nation) whereas corporate power can be exercised internationally. It really isn't difficult to tell who can do the most damage. This really isn't rocket science guys.

[Gardner Denver]

I was doing a little reading early this morning and I ran across this little jewel:

Quote: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance the government's reckless fiscal policies."

This speech was made by freshman Senator Barak Obama, 2006.

The irony of the speech is the fact that from 2005 to Jan 2009, Bush Jr's "reckless fiscal policies" ran up the deficit by 3 trillion dollars.  Since Barak Obama took office in early 2009, the deficit has climbed by another almost 4 trillion dollars.  That's more than Bush spent in 4 years INCLUDING Katrina, 2 wars, and round 1 of the financial system bailout!!

Reckless fiscal policy indeed!  Failure of leadership indeed! 

[Excarkun]

Wow still on the Reagan bang wagon. You do know the man has been dead for some time , yet you claim to know History. American history at that, but I quote you saying

"I need to brush up a bit on my US history, but wasn't your country founded on some fairly liberal principles?"

But yet you keep trying to push your hate/loathing of a dead President leader because what you were told by a very liberal teacher in college?  Furthermore what I can guess didn't like conservative ideas or what you want to label as neo-liberalism. And lets reach here you think that this concept is the reason for the American Economic down fall or why Slik Willy pushed and past those bills for free trade, not that it benefitted the mass amount of Big Conglomerate Corporations?? Noo at all, it was the way he thinks about the Neo-liberalism in him, right?
lolololololollrolff 
ok I?m rolling on the ground that is some funny shit.
Ok believe that, if it will make you feel more secure about your liberal beliefs and that the 2 party system rocs and the other side is ALWAYS EVIL. I'm glade you got that out there, now I feel so much better about Clinton and Obama.
AGIAN man Get REAL.
Can?t you see that is just crap, and comical.

Did you even read my post? You have put a bunch of questions in there which are answered in my post. I do not see how this exercise is helpful if you are not able to read what I have written. I have clearly explained how Reagan adopted neoliberalism in the 1980s. You just need to accept that conservative agenda won in the late 80s, early 90s (when communism died). All the shit you are swallowing today is attributable to them. I mean, if you had the left agenda win out in the 80s or 90s then we may have a different set of problems to deal with. But that does not change the fact that the Reagan led conservative agenda of neoliberal economics has fucked us in a major way. Now every democrat has shifted to the right and adopted similar policies. I am not defending them, merely pointing out that they are adopting republican policy. You are politically naive if you think that Reagan would not have adopted similar policies to Clinton in the 90s. You are right, he may not have been able to because he wasn't as good as Clinton, but they would have been there sooner or later. Maybe Bush Jr would have sold them to the public, fuck knows.

Like I stated above (yes read it, Don't agree one bit) looks to me your finding reason's why your Liberals Leaders fuck over people which is funny as hell. They did it because they are now Neo-liberals, might as well call them neo-Nazis too.

You say liberals are uneducated voters but then say the educational system is liberal... do you not see any inconsistency in this statement?

They are uneducated in how the system really works as well as you are. You want to watch liberal news or read it and believe the crap feed to you. This goes both ways if you were Right-winger you?ll watch conservative news outlets and think the same of the other party.  It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure out how the 2 party system helps control the masses and keep a country following and believing in their Government. If you claim to know history you do understand once the masses lose faith in there government and believes it corrupted as hell, it just a matter of time of a revolt. Yes the 2 party system is just a tool, and it is ran well, I admire it.

If your theory of the world is made up of conspiracies it is probably wrong.

It not conspiracies, it how it is done, I?m sure there is more too it I simplified it more for you. And I only said in The U.S. Federal government and at State level. I?m sure it at all levels, and wouldn?t surprise me it?s also in other countries with similar govt?s structures.
What is a conspiracy is the Neo-liberalism and why Clinton and Obmam do what they do to fuck over their voters.

Shit isn't that complicated; people, politicians, corporations act out of self-interest (for the most part).

Agreed Self-interest of money, and power.

I am going to leave it on this point. If you don't have a good grasp of history you will have no hope in understanding modern politics. If you can't see how Reagan is involved in what is happening today then you need to brush up on your history.

Again what up with this thing with a dead man that has been for some time now. I think you need to look at your other post about not up on American History and get caught up. NEo-Libralism is a reach for why liberal leaders are influenced by a dead man doesn?t float with me. This will float with other liberal?s tho.

PS - Bush started the bailout after spending all the surplus he was left from Clinton.

Let?s talk about this myth of a Surplus, Clinton ran deficits through all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clinton?s term. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin? application=np)

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb, Imagine that how when he had a surplus?  Here?s is how Clinton did managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits, Clinton actually borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a True Surplus, then the U.S. national debt will go down.
Again this must been Reagan?s doing and that Neo-Nazi (liberalism), not just Clinton?s charm and great ability to lie to public with liberal media to push his bullshit as it was fact, ?damn Reagan you did it again.?

Also, a union's power is limited (generally to the sovereign nation) whereas corporate power can be exercised internationally. It really isn't difficult to tell who can do the most damage. This really isn't rocket science guys.

Again I Loath Bush as well, he didn?t do shit to help the down turn of the America Economy. If anything he was like a Positive Feedback system for Clinton's Polices of free trade and Companies moving off shore.
But over all your only negatives like all Liberals is attacking conservative leaders and silly sad excuses for the liberal ones. Once you get educated on how Real Politics are run on the inside, maybe when your older you may run for some kind of office, or have a friend or family member that does, you?ll start to see my views. Till then Believe the Neo-Nazis (liberalism) story and keep pissing on a long Dead U.S. President leader.

We can agree to disagree on this view of yours. BTW who educated you on this I like to visit him/her and punch them in the face, it just criminal.

[Fuxsiloh]

You keep saying I have 'hate/loathing of a dead President' but you do realise that, dead or not, he still enacted policies right? You understand that the policy trajectory is still in place today, right? You realise that THERE ARE NO LIBERALS anymore, right? (As explained in previous two posts and not to be repeated again for you). When you beat up on 'liberal' (or democrat) policies you are actually bagging yourself. Which is amusing, but a bit concerning too.

Here is what I love though. You believe that the whole media and education system is all liberal... it is all a giant scam. I studied for 6 years and went on to do my honours in international politics. I came out far more conservative than I went in. I worked within the university for 2 years and found it was being gutted, serving only as an educational centre for corporate interests. The media is NOT liberal. It is not hard to find countless studies evidencing the decay of the media and the trend to trivialise, sensationalise and profiteer. Quite simply, they are a corporation and have a corporate agenda. Sure, they will certainly pick a winner to benefit their agenda, but as a corporate entity this is more often than not a neoliberal agenda (ie a CONSERVATIVE agenda). If you believe the media is liberal then you have not read enough or .... oh yeah, that's right! Books are written by educated people, educated liberals from liberal institutions who are trying to deceive you... bugger! (/sarcasm).

I should also say this, since it is a concept that appears alien to you. The media are not supposed to be bias. I know, freaky hey! They are supposed to be IMPARTIAL. If you can identify a newsource as liberal or conservative then it is probably not a very credible source. Then again, you seem to get confused sometimes with an accurate story/report, falsely labeling it 'liberal' since it doesn't suit your world theory. You should get into the habit of reading/watching a variety of news sources - this is something we were taught at university.. I wonder why the filthy, educated liberals would encourage us to watch conservative news sources... maybe they aren't liberals and are just interested in seeing their students become more enlightened human beings?

Also, you can repeat it as much as you like but I am not a supporter of the two-party system. In AUS following our recent election we had a hung parliament and this is the best outcome I could have hoped for. I am an active advocate of proportional representation in Australia (which would see the destruction of the two-party system).

I love how you have had to resort to discrediting HISTORY, EDUCATION and the MEDIA in order for your view of the world to stand up. Doesn't this flag a potential problem for you? I also stand by the statement, which has been repeated twice now. Reagan initiated it all (neoliberal economics). When communism died so did this concept of 'liberal' you throw around so loosely. BOTH parties are effectively right of centre now (as in conservative). Try as you may to disregard history, it is all recorded and my only concern is that you are able to vote, since you are blindly disregarding any evidence that is in opposition to your thought process. Thankfully, there is probably some Democrat Excarkun out there who is just as rusted on and will negate you voting power.

And yeah Gards, is your point that both leaders are useless, just Obama is 1 trillion times more pathetic? Or is there room for an argument of causation here. Either way, I am not up to the task of defending Obama. My whole point here is that they are all singing the same tune and if Bush (Jr or Sr), Clinton or Reagan were in power, they would be doing EXACTLY the same thing. Even if you had the clinically (and publicly) retarded Palin you would get the same old bullshit. I think your only hope is to adopt socialism in the US, otherwise you are going to be eaten from the inside out by the corporations you created.

[Excarkun]

You keep saying I have 'hate/loathing of a dead President' but you do realise that, dead or not, he still enacted policies right? You understand that the policy trajectory is still in place today, right? You realise that THERE ARE NO LIBERALS anymore, right? (As explained in previous two posts and not to be repeated again for you). When you beat up on 'liberal' (or democrat) policies you are actually bagging yourself. Which is amusing, but a bit concerning too.

Wow your educated on our government based only on Reagan?s old polices. Yea there?s some that are still in operation, but trust me they have been toyed with a tweaked to only benefit lobbyist interest.
Sense you think your so educated on Reagan polices, PLEASE tell me the One or Ones that Some How caused Jobs in America to be outsourced???
I?ll wait on that one, and No his Polices didn?t cause our Economic fall, if anything they caused our Economic Boom in the 90?s.
Although what did caused the economic mess we are in is the lost of masses amount of high paying labor/production jobs and service jobs due to outsourcing. The banking institutions failing due to also Clinton polices, high gas prices causing inflation which also started in Clinton was in office. A stock Market crash in 2000 also caused and during Clinton's last year. I know in your mind this is all Reagan?s fault, because can?t grasp the TRUTH that it Wasn?t .. it was Clinton?s.
What is this comedy hour now?
That's funniest thing I ever saw is you REALLY BELIEVE THERE is no MORE LIBERALS???
Maybe, not in your country but if your talking about the U.S.A. think again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

Here is what I love though. You believe that the whole media and education system is all liberal.. it is all a giant scam. .

When did I say ALLL Media is Liberal?  Most is, but that is because most Americans are. If you want to sell newspapers or advertisement commercials in America you go with the flow.  So if that means it is a scam then so be it.
In addition where did I say the EDUCATION SYSTEM IS LIBERAL? Because I said my Political Science teacher at he University admitted they where??  Not following you or your not understanding me clearly.

I studied for 6 years and went on to do my honours in international politics. I came out far more conservative than I went in. I worked within the university for 2 years and found it was being gutted, serving only as an educational centre for corporate interests. The media is NOT liberal. It is not hard to find countless studies evidencing the decay of the media and the trend to trivialise, sensationalise and profiteer. Quite simply, they are a corporation and have a corporate agenda. Sure, they will certainly pick a winner to benefit their agenda, but as a corporate entity this is more often than not a neoliberal agenda (ie a CONSERVATIVE agenda). If you believe the media is liberal then you have not read enough.

No you got it all Wrong,
It is not when they pick a winner before you vote. It's the negative press over and over again or positive slights over and over again over certain parties in office, is where you get the bias in articles or reports.

or .... oh yeah, that's right! Books are written by educated people, educated liberals from liberal institutions who are trying to deceive you... bugger! (/sarcasm).

I don?t think they are trying to deceive me, I think people are only human. Furthermore when someone writes an article or do a report on Joe Shmoe that either is conservative or liberal Politician (no wait they all gone Neo-Nazi) they add in their political views too. Now either this is done to get more Newspapers sold to there Liberal or conservative markets, or not, but it is done. Again since most Americans are registered Democrats and (it Still liberal hate to tell yea it?s alive and well) that?s what is mostly how things will get reported they are do have mostly bias over tones. And if a political story isn?t reported, because it won?t stir up the sales with the story.

How About I give an example: Lets say Bush actually pushed for Govt run Healthcare polices instead of Obama. How would the Press report this? Not hard to figure out they would have jumped all over the Health insurance company?s lobbyist and this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/obamas-private-health-car_n_243115.html
This would have been jumped on and would have been Big News. If this Was Bush (a Conservative) by the Liberal Media. The majority of the Media would said /wrote this would benefit big business (the Health care insurance companies and others). Which in fact it is, on the contrary since Obama push this agenda and he is liberal (like it or not call him Neo-Nazi too I careless) and is loved and well liked by our media and abroad. Shit the man did nothing but just get elected and wins the Nobel peace prize? WTF?
What peace did he cause, where, when?  It was a joke and Political Propaganda.
Well to get back to my point. 
That bit of news, Mr. Obama Private meetings was shoveled under the rug, not made much of it. That is the bias that is and always will be done by the Mass majority of the Media, It will Never stop, if it is it will cause them to lose sales if done so, so yea it?s a business plan so to say.

I should also say this, since it is a concept that appears alien to you. The media are not supposed to be bias. I know, freaky hey! They are supposed to be IMPARTIAL. If you can identify a newsource as liberal or conservative then it is probably not a very credible source. Then again, you seem to get confused sometimes with an accurate story/report, falsely labeling it 'liberal' since it doesn't suit your world theory.?

So now I have a World theory?
Can you enlighten me on it?
Well I know you have a American Economics theory that?s (wack) some how Reagan Brain washing Clinton to be a Neo-nazi(liberalism, wait they don?t exist Right.?, well you said so your self) which somehow caused him push for off-shore or outsourcing of American jobs  with his free trade polices that Reagan still caused?
Right?
Damn, your right all a long why didn?t I see that?
I would think this be Head line News ..

You should get into the habit of reading/watching a variety of news sources - this is something we were taught at university.. I wonder why the filthy, educated liberals would encourage us to watch conservative news sources... maybe they aren't liberals and are just interested in seeing their students become more enlightened human beings?

What I find very interesting is that Liberals only argue with me the most even tho I rip on both sides of the 2 party system. It is a fact that the Democrat (liberals or Neo-Nazis. Whatever again I know they also Don?t Exist got it.) Leaders are the ones passing the most polices that has fucked The U.S. Economy the most.. But here we go again you?re defending Liberals and saying you?re not liberal even too so far as to try to claim that they don?t exist anymore. That is still funny. 

Also, you can repeat it as much as you like but I am not a supporter of the two-party system. In AUS following our recent election we had a hung parliament and this is the best outcome I could have hoped for. I am an active advocate of proportional representation in Australia (which would see the destruction of the two-party system).

Cheers!!
But in your next few statements about my vote and all says otherwise. You still believe and probably a straight ticket voter. What is that party that?s yours that?s Neo-Nazi (liberal, liberalism) Labor right?

I love how you have had to resort to discrediting HISTORY, EDUCATION and the MEDIA in order for your view of the world to stand up. Doesn't this flag a potential problem for you?

I distorted History?
How?
And Education?  Interesting.
What draws a red flag here is how you and others are educated in Aus. Universities on how American Politics are.  Please slap or punch that goof ball that failed you so that you took classes from.

I also stand by the statement, which has been repeated twice now. Reagan initiated it all (neoliberal economics).

LOL he got to be a Super powerful man, Again he made CLINTON,  BRAIN-WASHED HIM TO PUSH FOR FREE TRADE RIGHT????
Don?t you see how Nutty this looks?

Here look up history, yea it's written, Clinton did it and Big Conglomerate corporations hired lobbyist REALLY wanted it, it is that simple. And Clinton did his Job, used his Charisma and his love by the mass media and abroad at the time to do others bidding and lying to public of it?s consequences in the future.
Isn?t that what Politician's do? Well He did it very well job.
Furthermore Reagan was not in office or at congress to also push for this agenda back in the middle 90?s. You may want to pin it on him Ok in fairy world u can.
Nevertheless in real world Clinton singed those polices, he was a Grown man he can and other?s can let the responsibilities fall where they should.

When communism died so did this concept of 'liberal' you throw around so loosely. BOTH parties are effectively right of centre now (as in conservative). Try as you may to disregard history, it is all recorded and my only concern is that you are able to vote, since you are blindly disregarding any evidence that is in opposition to your thought process. Thankfully, there is probably some Democrat Excarkun out there who is just as rusted on and will negate you voting power.

This is soo funny , your labeling me and hoping that someone on the other side of the 2 party system would vote against what I vote.. That is funny.

Again may be I should word this a bit different. I loath the 2 party system I still say it?s a tool to control the masses. I would use it to measure how much the masses believe in government, by the count of vote?s per major election.

What you see as liberals passing polices as Neo-nazi (or whatever) I see them doing their Political jobs for the lobbyist that gets them hooked up. Again I have a old friend that worked in my states Government as a lobbyist and told me some of shit they do to politicians to do their agendas passed for their customers. He is now in Washington, been there for a few years now, sure he is rolling in the cash. But it don?t matter what party you are, he talks to them and does what ever he can do to get agendas passed to support his clients business interest. And yea he says most Big corporations like Democratic presidents (LOVE THEM), because they will always have majority of the American liberal. I mean Neo-Liberal confidence (support) while pushing along some real sleazy bill?s in congress to not benefit the masses but their interest.  Examples: NAFTA and FREE Trade with ASIA..

And yeah Gards, is your point that both leaders are useless, just Obama is 1 trillion times more pathetic? Or is there room for an argument of causation here. Either way, I am not up to the task of defending Obama. My whole point here is that they are all singing the same tune and if Bush (Jr or Sr), Clinton or Reagan were in power, they would be doing EXACTLY the same thing. Even if you had the clinically (and publicly) retarded Palin you would get the same old bullshit. I think your only hope is to adopt socialism in the US, otherwise you are going to be eaten from the inside out by the corporations you created.

This is my last post on this, so have the last word, in yours. I will stand with mine that there still liberals, Clinton pass the polices that caused our Economic fall,
I loathe the 2 party system it is too controlling. Yes, there is Bias Media either Left wing or right and lobbyist period need to go, they should be banned from government. I will never see any of these things changed in my lifetime. And I would love to beat the hell out of you University teachers, because they are fucktards and don?t know shit about my Government and how it works.

Enjoy..

Sigh yea duhh I?m still done..

[dzhay]

What Obama has done in 2 years and the Democrats have done in the two years prior to that, has pushed us almost to the brink of being a communist country.

We'll pay you to sit unemployed for 99 weeks.
We'll give you free health care.
We'll spend a trillion dollars bailing out the banks for bad mortgages, but we'll still allow them to repo your house.  So they get their money AND your home.
We'll bail out the unions & CEO's of the auto makers while they continue to downsize, lay off workers, etc.
Let's grant citizenship to all illegals because they vote democrat and will keep us in office!

I really do not understand how accusing Obama of being a socialist/communist passes for political discourse. It is literally the single most absurd slur I have heard (although insinuating he is a Muslim is also right up there).

If I am not mistaken you have an extremely liberal economy (gigantic subsidies to vested interests notwithstanding), one of (if not the) greatest disparities between rich and poor in the world and a social safety net that is so weak that it would shame most other developed Western economies. Which part of that sounds like socialism?

You should look around the world and realize that free health care is a right in almost all (if not all) Western countries, including many whose economic performance exceeds your own. It's fine to have a different social contract, but to characterize someone trying to implement and extremely modest form of health insurance as a communist really makes your political culture seem infantile, poorly educated, insular and so mired in the past that it cannot conceive of improvement to your country.

[Fuxsiloh]

The article to read Excarkun is "The Role Model: What Obama sees in Reagan"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601110207,00.html

Note the use of "Reagan era" in the article. It really is standard history; Reagan ushered in the neo-liberal economic policies which you are criticising today. There was talk that Obama would not follow suit, but as it turns out, he is following the same trajectory. Then again, with the perspective you hold, even if he did try and steer the ship in a different direction, so to speak, you'd label him a socialist, communist, radical and he'd get booted out of office... oh wait, you already do that!

[dzhay]

I don't know why you bother. People who have such a poor grasp of their own country's history and politics are really not worth the time it takes to prove them wrong. The sad thing is, of course, that they get to vote and it effects the entire world.

Blaming Obama for the state of the American economy or the rabid laissez-faire liberalism that lead to the GFC is perhaps even more absurd than the communist slur. Deregulation and a smaller state create an environment ripe for corporate fuckery.

[Excarkun]

The article to read Excarkun is "The Role Model: What Obama sees in Reagan"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601110207,00.html

Note the use of "Reagan era" in the article. It really is standard history; Reagan ushered in the neo-liberal economic policies which you are criticising today. There was talk that Obama would not follow suit, but as it turns out, he is following the same trajectory. Then again, with the perspective you hold, even if he did try and steer the ship in a different direction, so to speak, you'd label him a socialist, communist, radical and he'd get booted out of office... oh wait, you already do that!

Did you read this article that you posted clearly you didn't. Nowhere in it does it mention this neo-nazi stuff or that Obama is now also under this Spell of Neo-liberalism? 
If so Please again point it out.
I?ll tell you what it really is, Political Scam, ploy, Act. It makes the public think, No believe he is studying and looking for idea?s to help turn the economy around. Even looking like he is going to embrace old Reagan Economics?, when he finally does something that is bipartisan he played up to it in the public eye.
But this is my Conflict theories kick in. Nevertheless, there is always reason why things like that makes it to the public, it just why. Will find out later once our government passes a budget.

Also again I?m still waiting on those Reagan polices that promoted Outsourcing of Jobs? I want facts not your opinion or your socialist/liberal taught views. Come on back up your views with some thing.

Did you take a sociology class while at College? If so or not look up Conflict theory read it. Maybe then you will understand some of my views come from. Interesting the theory originally is from Karl Marx, under his views on the Bourgeoisie.

Also I feel I have to educate you on What Socialists, liberals and communist are. They ARE all Levels of Socialism. Each is a degree with communist being most government controlled.
Any Form OF Government run Policies or programs it?s a form of Socialism. Not all government programs are bad but too many does lean more and more too a communist type of government and economic system.  Just look at how well the Soviet Union worked out; it crashed and burned trying to compete with the U.S.
So it?s SCARY as hell to see your Politicians talk Socialist type programs that in all other countries having budgeting problems with it furthermore, waiting list for it?s people for simple surgeries or heart by passes that can kill you while you wait. Even the Medicare of  Australia. 


http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/75/fact_sheet_7.html
Also this from 2009 Quote? about Australia?s  Gov?t  great Health care .

Approximately 43% of Australians also retain private health insurance, even though they are already entitled to free treatment in public hospitals. The major reasons for taking up health insurance despite the free public system are:
?   Shorter waiting lists in private hospitals (especially for procedures such as joint reconstructions or heart bypass surgery, for which there are often long waiting times in public hospitals).
?   Choice of hospital/physician in the private system;
?   Improved accommodation facilities such as private rooms (although medical facilities are usually more extensive in the public system).
Some people choose to have private coverage for ancillary treatment, or "extras", (e.g. chiropractic, dental, optical, ambulance, etc - for which Medicare has limited or no cover) but use the Medicare system for hospital treatment.
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Medicare_%28Australia%29

Waiting List WOW what a surprise same problem?s Canada?s having. What is interesting is that  in the 1st article the Australian government wants to move more of the Health care burden back in to the private sector. And my Quote of part of the second article above quote clearly shows why. I can only imagine that the average Australian that can?t afford the private insurance don?t have great teeth with not even government coverage for cleanings. These are the reason?s you hear people that are American?s that don?t want it Gov?t health care.
But even in your country the government is funding the Private sector Health Insurance companies and the public that buys the coverage talk about dbl the $$. I think I need to look at those profit reports of those Aus?y health insurance companies and then buy some of there stock. Well at least your Not forced to buy Private health insurance coverage. And if I?m right Our Supreme Court threw out that part of Obama?s Health care plan, thank god and but there goes my Stock in ProMedica health insurance.

Btw. I never called Obama a Commy (I think that was only Gardner) but did and will call him Liberal or what ever type of socialists you want to label him.
Don?t forget I want to see those Reagan polices that Promote job outscoring and a unbalanced trade deficit while your at it.
Along with where in that time Article that says Neo anything??

[Gardner Denver]

Btw. I never called Obama a Commy (I think that was only Gardner) but did and will call him Liberal or what ever type of socialists you want to label him.

Comrade Party Chairman Obama.  Say the full title of the KGB will come and bang on your door Comrade.

[Gardner Denver]

My take on the article is pretty simple, can can be summed up in just a few words.

Obama does not want to learn from Reagan

• the President.
• the Leader
• the Gipper

He wants to learn from Reagans golden tounge.  What he will have to learn is no matter how gilded your tongue is, it's still just bullshit coming out when it's Obama speaking.

Reagan was a good great leader because he was able to pool some of the best concepts from both parties together while staying away from the edge fringe groups agenda by and large.  That ability made him one of the greatest leaders in my life time to date.  This is beyond Obama's ability.  He is not capable of doing this.  He will never be another Reagan.  He will never be close to another Reagan.  It is both insulting and slightly offensive to me that Obama thinks people such as myself are stupid enough to be bumfuzzled by a speech writer and Obama's smooth delivery.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  Obama is like Bill Clinton.  He's a smooth talker.  He's a great orator.  His speech writers are fantastic.  Maybe he can feel my pain.

Maybe he can kiss my ass too.