Comments on: Change, As Usual

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:04:40 +0000

"You can't HONESTLY think that Sovietism and Marxism are the same thing!!! Sovietism is complete government ownership of everything"

You contradicted yourself. We shouldn't ever be naive enough to think any type of marxist totalitarian government would ever lead to utopia. Slavery is what it leads to. The USSR is what it leads to, honestly.

Has it ever occurred to you that this greedy, selfish Capitalist country is the richest country in the history of the world ? Guess not. Oh, well. The good news (for you) is, that may not be true for much longer.

By: Da King of Reason

Da King of Reason — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:48:06 +0000

"The CHANGE theme isn't unique to the USA. In 1957, Nikiti Kruschev's CHANGE vision for the Soviet economy was called Catch Up And Overtake America (take heed, leftists. If Marxism was so great, the Soviets wouldn't have needed to "catch up." They never did, btw. They collapsed instead)."

OH, COME ON!!!! You can't HONESTLY think that Sovietism and Marxism are the same thing!!! Sovietism is complete government ownership of everything, including your soul, incorporated with extreme punishment for insubordination.

I'm not here to openly advocate Marxism- I think some parts of it are interesting ideas, others are too extreme and would never work in the real world. But at least get your facts straight.

Marxism- government control eventually leading to a utopian society with no government whatsoever where people make the same wages and everyone does their job to make the community a better place (it's called Communism, and we horribly distort its meaning because of years of mutually insolent conflicts with an allegedly Communist country) is actually a beautiful concept in its purist form, but the purist form could never take place in this world, because of things like Wall Street. The greed and selfish attitude that propels this Capitalist society is what separates us from an ideal society that would be perfect for everyone.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:13:15 +0000

Rev says, "Then, according to you, it would have been better if Obama had refused to release the names of those who visited the White House?"

No, I said precisely the opposite of that. Try to keep up.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:28:04 +0000

Then, according to you, it would have been better if Obama had refused to release the names of those who visited the White House? He's punking us by releasing them. And no one wants to get punked…not really. So Obama should have done what Bush did….Bush didn't punk us….he refused to give up those "national security endangering" names of all the energy barons, Rove's meetups, and those pesky Abramoff conspirators. Bush was good, he didn't punk us.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:35:18 +0000

Tbomb,
The 10 year CBO cost estimate for health care reform is based upon 10 years of taxes and only 5-6 years of benefits. See my previous remark about "getting punked."

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:21:51 +0000

If we are measuring CHANGE as Obama releasing the records of who he met with, while at the same time he continues to cater to every special interest in sight on health care reform…to me, that just sounds like cosmetic change, the illusion of change without any real change attached. In street lingo, this is known as getting punked. Color me unimpressed.

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:12:41 +0000

It's also not the number the CBO has come up with.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:01:08 +0000

Three trillion! That's a big number!

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:27:27 +0000

It is legal in the U.S. to "bribe" elected officials. Campaign financing is all dressed up in legal niceties…but we all know what it is ….bribery. Until that dynamic is changed, nothing of significance will change in the U.S.

To King's credit, he points out the distinctive change from Bushian Cheney-energy talks and Obama's release of White House visitors lists. Bush argued that who visited the White House was national security material and Americans, therefore, had no right to know who visited. Obama has changed that.

Obama has held the presidency for just about 11 months. I know that King knows….that change, if it comes at all from the federal government, comes very, very slowly.

One more interesting thing here….

"The arrangements were hammered out in private meetings, drawing comparisons to Vice President Dick Cheney's secret talks with the energy industry as he helped President George W. Bush draft a national energy policy."

The "drawing comparisons" part is what's interesting. I don't think Americans, ever, obtained access to Cheney's energy-buddy list…..whereas in Obama's first 11 months, we know who he met with from the medical industry.

The AP is part of our corporate-whore culture.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:46:08 +0000

It`s funny people are calling for a change after one year in office? ONE YEAR! Mmmmm! Okay, for the sake of argument I`ll buy this argument (flawed as it is.) Who in the GOP would be a good fit? What makes this candidate better than what we have now?