Monday, October 17, 2011

Occupiers Directed By Professional Commie Propagandists Tied To Soros, Obama



Story here.

A public relations firm closely partnered with the George Soros-funded Tides Foundation represented last week's anti-Wall Street march past millionaires' homes in New York, WND has learned.

Fenton Communications has been behind the public relations strategy of a who's who of far-left causes, organizations and activists, from Soros himself to Health Care for America Now to crafting strategies for MoveOn.org and a litany of anti-war groups.

Fenton, which works closely with Tides, first made its name representing communist dictatorships in the 1980s.

Fenton's founder is tied to President Obama and to a slew of Saul Alinsky-style community organizing groups directly involved in recent U.S. street protests, including in Wisconsin and New York.

28 comments:

MikeAdamson said...

As always, another interesting read from the good folks at WND. Looking at the situation from another point of view, Wall Street broker and blogger Joshua Brown has been following developments and trying to make sense of it all while keeping an open mind. This piece he did featuring a protester named Suzanne puts the simplistic view of the Occupiers as monolithic anti-capitalist mob to rest without lionising and or demonising either side.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/10/16/suzanne/

I'll be surprised if anything meaningful and lasting comes out of the protests but history tells us that you never really know.

Canadian Sentinel said...

So he polled ONE person on her views.

Ok, she represents the majority, right-o.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I'll go with actual observation, empiricism, and pattern development-analysis, thank you very much. Besides, "Suzanne" could well be a propagandist, paid, drum-roll, by George Soros via one of his many extreme subversive organizations.

∞ ≠ ø said...

At best Mike, Josh Brown found a baby in the filthy filthy bath water. In her mind it's all about "...checks and balances, not about redistribution. We all went to sleep ten years ago and allowed the banks and the government to run the show, we trusted them and they took over, eliminating opportunity for everyone else. This is about taking that opportunity back" and here ends the substance of the entire article.

So, 47 words out of a 1,055 word-blathering are the substance. A single quote. And upon closer examination you will see that Suzanne's quote is pure platitude driven rhetoric. Different than the predominant vacant stare, the naked antisemitism, and ravenous anti capitalistic fascism I agree; but still, this is hardly material for a rebuttal. This piece is merely part of a marketing gimmick for the "Reformed Broker" (Platitude or oxymoron? I can't decide)

It seems keeping an open mind is a new euphemism for the denial of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence.

P.S.
So who is "Suzanne" and what cloud does she live on? Let's ask Joshua Brown.
http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/03/31/the-cloud-gets-creepy/

MikeAdamson said...

Good for you guys reading Brown's article. I have less hope of seeing a softening in your position than I do of practical results coming out of OWS but I'm glad you took the time. The important points are that it's not just dirty hippies at these things and that there may be some reason for optimism that the movement won't be co-opted by the political machine, unlike a certain other populist protest movement which shall remain nameless.

glacierman said...

All I want to know is how much money George is going to make on this?

He doesn't get his hands dirty unless there is a $20...or $Billion in the crapper when he goes for the dive!

The man is a money-whore!!

∞ ≠ ø said...

..."I have less hope of seeing a softening in your position..."

Mike I'm glad you realize this. Truth is a hard taskmaster. It requires homework. The 'soft option' is indicative of a move away from the truth. And in that spirit...

..."there may be some reason for optimism that the movement won't be co-opted by the political machine,...

Here you are sneaking in a rebuttal, and a dubious one at best because of your use of the term co-opted. The Bowel on Wall Street Movement defines the term. Here a vast nebulousness of ignorance and wide ranging opinion has been co-opted into an anti- (I'll use) financial establishment movement. The diversity represented in their small numbers alone indicates an organizing force "co-opting" disparate groups into one unified action.
(Geesus Mike, smell the coffee.)

"...unlike a certain other populist protest movement which shall remain nameless.

The TEA PARTY Mike, is a political machine. There is no co-opting of this focused homogenous group of like minded individuals.

Mike, closely read the article you presented (it opens like a film noir). Read Joshua Brown's site to get a feel for both his politics and his marketing gimmicks. Compare Joshua Brown's position to his interviewee's (Suzanne). Look at the 'cloud girl article' I referenced you to from his site.

Mike, FIX YOUR CRAP DETECTOR.

Your completely incorrect second rebuttal also comes from buying into the stuff you read.

Canadian Sentinel said...

...and Infin masterfully puts Mr. Adamson in his place.

Well-done, Infin! :D

MikeAdamson said...

Infy...the "anti-financial establishment movement" features Democrats, Republicans, Wall Steeters, Main Streeters, Tea Partiers, Socialists, small business, big business, labour, etc. etc. It's not so much a matter of co-optation as it is a recognition by people from a wide cross section of society that the capitalist system itself is jeopardised by a bunch of short term thinking cowboys and the governments that enable their destructive behaviour.

As for the unpopular Tea Party, it's thrown its lot in with the Republican Party and will sink or swim depending on the strategy of the Republican leadership. I suspect that the leash will become shorter as time goes on and the Tea Party will be kicked to the curb when American politics makes its inevitable swing back towards the centre.

I appreciate your comments.

∞ ≠ ø said...

"...the capitalist system itself is jeopardised by a bunch of short term thinking cowboys and the governments that enable their destructive behaviour..."

A for rhetoric.

"...the unpopular Tea Party..."

B for bull shet.

"Infy"

C for cute.

D for your spelling; reference here: http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/BritishCanadianAmerican.htm

F for ..."features..."

This movement "features" IGNORANCE, far beyond any other descriptive categorization, followed by an alarming amount of antisemitism, anti-capitalism, anti wealth, etc. etc... in short progressives.

The moderate and more inclusive spin you and others are trying desperately to establish will be thwarted when the movement inevitably swings towards violence.
(See its such an easy game; let's stick to substance.)

Let's pick the rhetoric I awarded an A for. Qualify this for us and we may find common ground.

MikeAdamson said...

Of course the usual suspects are part of the occupation thus far but what has struck me is the presence of unusual types who aren't Marxists or anarchists or members of the protest of the month club. If more "regular folks" don't join in then obviously nothing much will come of it all but if it follows the pattern of the anti-war movement in the sixties for example then governments may be forced to respond in meaningful ways. I'm old enough and realistic enough to know that this path isn't inevitable nor even probable but what I have observed thus far does give me some hope.

I labeled the Tea Party "unpopular" because American opinion polling says it is. The best numbers I've seen over the last six months suggest 33% support for the Tea Party and its policies among the American public...that's not a movement sweeping the nation, is it?

I've heard lots of anti-capitalist talk from the occupations and I've seen the odd anti-semetic reference which is regrettable and repugnant. The latter has been episodic and doesn't reflect the beliefs and actions of the demonstrations that I have witnessed. The former could be problematic if the grievances boil down to a general avti-capitalist screed since that will not attract popular support. If the issues become more specifically related to the lack of economic progress over the past thirty years, the increasing inequality in society which has historically contributed to societal instability and unrest and to the intermingling of financial and governmental elites who have been only too happy to have each other's back to the detriment of the rest of us...if these become the focus then I think you'll find resonance with public opinion.

Isn't it fun talking with the other side? ;)

∞ ≠ ø said...

..."If more "regular folks" don't join in then obviously nothing much will come of it..."

Indeed. This is painfully obvious to the progressives evidenced by their shift from less covert activities by flying in advisers and organizers to stratify the event and tailor messages for them. The pawns are out, now for the rest of the pieces. Sentinel has done well to disclose this but will you listen?
The "regular folks" however, will have to be co-opted, duped, or scammed into participation. As for now, I can't label any person who attends these nebulous, nefarious, drug ridden, stinky affairs regular.

..."if it follows the pattern of the anti-war movement in the sixties for example then governments may be forced to respond in meaningful ways..."

Meaningful ways Mike? In the name of similar nebulous, ill founded self serving concepts of peace the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam after a decisive defensive victory over the Tet Offensive only to abandon South Vietnam, the Hmong, and allow Pol Pot to butcher 1.7 million people in Cambodia.

"...33% support for the Tea Party and its policies among the American public...that's not a movement sweeping the nation, is it?

Yes, in fact it is. Consider Canada's last election. In a Three candidate race 30% plus a high percentage of the swing vote wins.

..."the lack of economic progress over the past thirty years...

By what measure?

..."the increasing inequality in society..."

By what measure?

..."the intermingling of financial and governmental elites who have been only too happy to have each other's back..."

When and where has this ever not been the case?

..."to the detriment of the rest of us"...

Certainly not in all cases.

Like your compatriots in the parks you have failed to provide a compelling substantive argument.

Here's a quick view for you from my favorite candidate. You'll love his first few lines.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/newt_gingrich_throw_barney_frank_in_jail.html

I look forward to your reply.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Bravo!

Couldn't have said it better than Infin...

Canadian Sentinel said...

Poor Mikey the Prog is getting poon'd here...

balbulican said...

"Couldn't have said it better than Infin..."

ROTFLMAO. No, most assuredly you couldn't.

What's funny, Sentinel, is that Mike is trying to engage you in a real discussion, and Squiggles (who, by the way. views you with amused contempt) derails it.

And you think that's getting "poon'd", do you?

MikeAdamson said...

Sorry for my absence brothers but I was away with the kids this weekend. We too a trip to downtown Toronto, the first time any of them had been downtown, but weren't able to make it over to Occupy TO on Church St. Another time perhaps.

I see I've been left a lot to reply to and I'm not really sure I have the time to do it justice so I'm sorry for the gloss over. I subsribe to the consensus view of Vietnam War history so you know I can't agree on that one. 33% of Americans have a positive view of the Tea Party but I doubt it means that many would actually vote for them. The lack of economic progress is evidenced by GDP growth minus debt. Debt is a useful instrument when used properly but if too much economic growth can be traced to home equity withdrawls and investment bank profits then you're not looking as sustainable growth, you're looking at a bubble. Yes, governments and the monied classes have backed each other through history but defenders of free markets seem more concerned about unions and regulation than the so called 'crony capitalism." One I see some serious work from conservatives on that issue then I will take their argument that they're simply defending individual freedom more seriously.

The Vietnam demonstrations began as a movement of interested partisans and agitators but the government wasn't forced to take the demonstrators' views seriously until the general cross section of society joined in. That's simply history and there's no guarantee that the Occupy groups will enjoy similar success. Possible, not probable is my honest assessment at this point.

I must dash but I didn't want you to think I'd given up or was hiding out. I appreciate the time you've put in and I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Wow! No, I mean WOW!
He returns, and this time from Macedonia quoting DuBois no less. H-O-L-Y Shet Batman look what we have here!

Blabs, do you really think (seriously dude) that your mischief will cause any concern?

I can't speak for the Sentinel but I for one am flattered by your Machiavellian efforts. Bravo! Bravo!

∞ ≠ ø said...

C'mon Mike, it's O.K., you can say it. The open air freak show is no place for kids.

"...I see I've been left a lot to reply to..."

Well, your quality of implication requires a quantity of explanation.

..."I subsribe to the consensus view ..."

So you either lack critical thinking skills or have absolutely no mind of your own. Now that seems harsh on the face of it but in light of the idea that there should be any ..."hope of seeing a softening in your position..." You must see the most acute perspective first.
Substitute "I subscribe to the consensus view" with "I choose the easy path." There, that's softer.
… “33% of Americans have a positive view of the Tea Party but I doubt it means that many would actually vote for them…”
First off (minor point) The Tea Party is at this point a movement and not an official party. The movement is decidedly conservative and was galvanized by an alarming electorate (and resultant representative) shift far to the left of center on the national political spectrum (subjectivity theirs). The Tea Parties origins and founders are Libertarian, but here’s the rub. Some have estimated that the party includes up to 40% disaffected Democrats, with disaffected Republicans, independents, some true swing voters, and real Libertarians sharing the remaining 60%.
I made this comment on an earlier post: Libertarianism (IMO) is a cover phrase for individualism (in creeps Nietzsche). It has always been a veritable playground of moral relativism for both liberal and conservative branded thinking. Both left and right libertarians embrace the approach to anarchy if not anarchy itself …
Ron Paul is a real Libertarian. The Tea Party is genuinely conservative and therefore inclined more toward statism than anarchism. So how will they vote? If Paul runs as an independent after the primaries, would that potentiate a disastrous split of the conservative vote? I think not given the estimate of Democrat participants. I think he may even grow more popular with democrats if he does run. The real problem, as far as I’m concerned, is that he might actually win.

∞ ≠ ø said...

… “ The lack of economic progress is evidenced by GDP growth minus debt.
I am dubious about this as it oversimplifies the concept. Also, there is often no accounting for hidden or off the book spending by the fed. Here is a link to what is perhaps the most informed perspective on “economic progress”. If you are into economics, this will blow your mind. The chart it opens up with actually covers all debt. First of its kind I have ever seen. The comments and responses are helpful. There are many. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177912 . Contrasted with this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=H0-fed&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&col=c one can clearly see that the markets are correcting themselves in extraordinary fashion despite huge government deficit spending attempting to push them back into unsustainable patterns. History repeats itself. Government funding will lengthen the recovery from… you guessed it… government funding.
”… defenders of free markets seem more concerned about unions and regulation than the so called 'crony capitalism…”
Well, with Obama we see crony capitalism, and crony socialism. Solyndra, huge union bailouts, money laundering tax dollars through unions to his campaign fund… http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/08/obamacare-bails-out-union-pension-plans-too. And, as Sentinel points out, G.E. (the parent company of MSNBC, CNBC, NBC )is another fine example. They got to put the F.D.I.C. on the hook for 139 billion. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/fdic-to-back-139-billion-in-ge-capital-debt/
Crony capitalism can cater to unions and set particularistic regulations to favor or deter businesses. I think here your effort to draw contrast only highlights a misinformed perspective.
” Once I see some serious work from conservatives on that issue then I will take their argument that they're simply defending individual freedom more seriously.”
Your wish is granted.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-field-takes-aim-crony-capitalism-finally
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29544

“…until the general cross section of society joined in.”
Sub in: were duped, co-opted, brainwashed by the constant barrage of the leftist press. Sub in, took the easy path. Examine the role of socialism here http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Use a calculator. The easy path, whoops apocalypse indeed.

MikeAdamson said...

I think the kids would have benefited from seeing the event since too often their political opinions are shaped for them rather than by them...seeing and hearing it themselves would have been a good start. In terms of Vietnam I subscribe to the consensus view, not because it is the consensus, but because it is the most plausible account. The interpretation you suggest has always struck me as a response from people who had difficulty coming to grips with the fact that the most powerful military force on earth could not decisively defeat an enemy who relied on guerrilla and asynchronous warfare tactics.

Alas I'm being called away so I'll send these two and return when I'm able.

∞ ≠ ø said...

It seems that it so often becomes the task of the conservative to shovel (heh) snow. (There, that was softer.) Let me clear the path from linguistics and jargon for you.
First off, the most common attribution of defeat in Vietnam is asymmetric warfare. The term asynchronous, can be used as a subset of asymmetry, but is used generally in terms of information warfare, and at times to describe terrorism. Moving forward, I trust that since we were on the topic of The Vietnam “War” , the term asymmetric is what you intended.
“Asymmetric Warfare:” Gee, sounds special, but it really isn’t. In fact, the term simply refers to any format of combat tactics. For example if we each had 100 men in a field and you lined yours up 10 x 10 and I chose 20 x 4 the resultant asymmetry defines the term. Warfare requires asymmetry to the extent that the terms are redundant. So, what happened in Vietnam? The rules of engagement were set so unfavorably by Washington bureaucrats that the U.S. military was essentially locked into a symmetric defensive stance.
Picture a chess game where your opponent plays regular chess, but you are required to only defend the king and cannot move beyond the 6th rank to do so. This is pretty much the reality of Vietnam. This metaphor is clearly demonstrated in the following excerpt.
Continue.....>

∞ ≠ ø said...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm
The crews that flew the aircraft found the ROEs not only overly restrictive but extremely complicated, confusing, and difficult to learn and remember. The list of restrictions and limitations was so long and changed so often that they were difficult to comprehend on the ground, much less remember and keep straight while in a fast moving combat situation.13 Crews depended on daily study and on radar controllers to keep them from violations of the complex ROEs, and from flying where they might not be able to defend even when fired on.
Several incidents of ROE violations led to court-martial charges; one that led to charges against the commander and the aircrew was the strafing of the Soviet ship Turkestan in 1967 near Haiphong.14 Fear of ROE violations and the consequences of them led to a dilemma; many aircrews felt as if they could not accomplish their mission without either getting killed by the enemy or brought up on court-martial charges by their own governrment.15
American air losses over North Vietnam rose continuously with over 500 aircraft lost during 1966 and 1967. Crews began to see that it was highly unlikely they would survive a 100-mission tour in Southeast Asia.16 Many of these losses resulted from restrictions against attacking SAM sites or other significant targets in or around populated areas. The ROE restrictions allowed the North Vietnamese to continuously build up their air defense systems in the most critical areas of the region (with Hanoi being the most significant). The combination of restrictive ROEs and the heavy enemy air defenses made the job of air commanders and each aircrew member more difficult than it should have been.
North Vietnam Exploits U.S. ROE:
The restrictive ROEs in North Vietnam aided the enemy by providing sanctuaries and restricted areas where they had the space and time to build up their air defenses to engage U.S. aircraft. The piecemeal approach to attacks in North Vietnam did not allow concentrated bombing and actually strengthened the will of the North Vietnamese as opposed to weakening it. American leaders made it clear in public statements that we had no intention of destroying the government of North Vietnam; the leaders in North Vietnam saw this as an opportunity to exploit an American weakness.17

....> continue

∞ ≠ ø said...

The most significant restricted areas that provided sanctuary were the 30 mile area around Hanoi, the 10 mile area around Haiphong, and a 25 to 30 mile "buffer zone" along the Chinese border. These sanctuaries prevented attacks against key targets in the north without prior approval from Washington. The North Vietnamese took advantage of this by offsetting the damage done by our aircraft in non-protected areas. Because Haiphong Harbor was a safe port, they were able to ship up to 85% of their war goods by sea and download them with impunity 24 hours a day at that location.18 These safe havens allowed the enemy to stockpile war materials until they could be moved to the south. The "buffer zone" along the Chinese border was thousands of square miles where the North Vietnamese could store and transport materials with no fear of U.S. attack. This made any attempts at reducing the ability of the enemy to sustain their combat operations almost futile.
The enemy also took advantage of the restrictions in areas where attacks might result in civilian casualties. North Vietnamese put air defense systems and war materials in or near populated areas to protect them. Because of improvements in air defense systems, the enemy was able to effectively identify/target U.S. aircraft from these sanctuaries. Even when U.S. intelligence showed these areas to be crowded with supplies (and a legitimate target according to the laws of war), ROEs prevented our aircraft from hitting them.19
When restrictions were lifted in some areas (1967) any collateral damage was used by the enemy as a propaganda tool to charge the U.S. with indiscriminate bombing of innocent people. Exaggerated reports of collateral damage were effective in destroying the already decaying support for U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Continue....>

∞ ≠ ø said...

http://www.historynet.com/air-force-colonel-jacksel-jack-broughton-air-force-general-john-d-jack-lavelle-testing-the-rules-of-engagement-during-the-vietnam-war.htm/2
As General William C. Westmoreland, the longtime U.S. military commander in Vietnam, related in his memoirs: 'In 1965, we observed the construction of the first surface-to-air (SAM) sites in North Vietnam, and the military sought permission to attack them before they were completed to save American casualties. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs John McNaughton ridiculed the idea. "You don't think the North Vietnamese are going to use them!' he scoffed [to Lavelle's predecessor, Seventh Air Force Commander General Joseph H. Moore]. 'Putting them in is just a political ploy by the Russians to appease Hanoi.' It was all a matter of signals, said the clever civilian theorist in Washington. We won't bomb the SAM sites, which signals to North Vietnam not to use them.' But our enemies were not playing Washington's silly games. A month later the United States lost its first aircraft to a SAM.
One exchange between Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, an Air Force Reserve major general, and General Lavelle was revealing. 'You didn't have the authority to hit a MiG because it was sitting on an airfield below the 19th parallel?' asked Goldwater. 'Yes, sir, that's right,' replied Lavelle. 'It's a hell of a way to run a war,' responded Goldwater. But before he could say more he was cut off by Democratic Senator John Stennis of Mississippi,

Mike. your opinions continuously reflect upon your sources which have left you tragically misinformed and incapable of substantiating your positions. Clearly the military was not the issue. It’s people like you Mike, who we have difficulty coming to grips with.

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Infin,
Well, that was a job well done, bravo!!

MikeAdamson said...

Thanks for the correction in terminology Inf...that is what I meant. I agree that the military wasn't permitted to use all of its available options...a nuke or two would obviously have put an end to the Communist forces as would the committment of more troops with more arms and more efficient plans. If America was a truly military society then the Vietnamese would be toast as would the Iraqis and the Taliban and the Iranians etc. etc. Since America is not such a society then the military has to play a subservient to the government and its hands are going to be tied for whatever reason. Just to tie it back to OWS, the capitalist economy is most efficient when it is free from constraints and government intervention but it has to be subservient to the wishes and beliefs of the citizenry...child labour is a fabulous thing economically speaking but we don't want our kids working from sunrise to sunset. Similarly, the American people weren't particularly interested in throwing more lives and more resources into Vietnam and so the military couldn't do the job it wanted to do.

It all comes down to what kind of society people want to live in and, sadly for your side, America just wasn't prepared to throw everything at an enemy half way round the world.

∞ ≠ ø said...

I’ve been a bit preoccupied lately; I however must take time express my disappointment with your summation. I think you read too quickly, assume too much, and resist contemplative effort.
First off, there was never a nuclear option in Vietnam, nor have I ever encountered that idea. I suppose, given the way you have phrased your assessment, you believe otherwise. Furthermore, my argument did not involve an increase in troop strength, armaments, and certainly did not disparage the quality of our aircraft. The weaponry (and all manner of supplies) of the Viet Cong and NVA regulars was 100% Chinese and Russian supplied, and was transported south (and later north from Sihanoukville) through two major edifices: Haiphong harbor (received an estimated 85%) and the Ho Chi Minh through Laos and Cambodia.
This is an excellent article:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2005/November%202005/1105trail.aspx
…”In recent years, Vietnamese leaders have confirmed that their strategy for winning the war depended on infiltrating troops and supplies into South Vietnam… Their strategy worked because US policy ruled out stopping the flow at its source by striking the ports and logistics centers in the North… That left Air Force and Navy airmen to chase down the trucks, one by one, on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and that was never a realistic or reasonable objective.”

A good map here:
http://www.vietquoc.com/na110400.htm
“Without half of the Chinese assistance, the Vietnamese Communists would have failed to win the war.
It seems that such realities have not been taken into consideration in many studies and researches on the Vietnam War, but false reports like those on the location of the HCM highway are accepted easily. That's one of the most disastrous problems of our time.”

Moving right along:
“If America was a truly military society then the Vietnamese would be toast…”
Again this was never the point of our effort there. Clearly you have been programmed to think this way. Ask yourself where you get these ideas from and why, given that they are demonstrably false notions, were you ever seeded with them? Are you unaware that, every day, there is a struggle for hegemony in public opinion? I think you are. So then why do you never suspect that you have become slowly, over time, enveloped by a masking ideology?
CONTINUE --->

∞ ≠ ø said...

“..the military has to play a subservient to the government and its hands are going to be tied for whatever reason. And Mike, you accept this? The frivolity? The stupidity of a few misguided leaders should be allowed to inflict massive causalities and unnecessary deaths of their own people, and the people they are fighting for, based on “The Fog of War”?
THAT WAS VIET PHUKING NAM… MAN!
Tie OWS to Vietnam? Easy. You already did with this: “America just wasn't prepared to throw everything at an enemy half way round the world.” Well they’re here now Mike. We’ve got Ho Chi Bama sitting in our Whitehouse (Hanoi), and the brutally ignorant deluded hair-heads are gathering in our parks protesting the wrong things for the wrong (selfish) reasons once again. Wall Street (Saigon), weakened by the bad leadership and ousting of Keynesian leaders (Greenspan et al. / Diem), falls prey to Bernanke (Col. Thao) and further insurgent activity (Viet Cong, Globalists) while Ho Chi Bama ransacks the rice (destroys the currency). …. So… who’s left? The conservatives obviously represent U.S. and ally forces. The NVA? Try the MS effing M, who keep coming and coming with fresh supplies of bullshet straight from chairman Mao… (Soros).
How’s that tie in for ya?
Capitalism …”is most efficient when it is free from constraints and government intervention but it has to be subservient to the wishes and beliefs of the citizenry.” while “…military has to play a (role) subservient to the government…” WTF? Really?
So when the hair-heads in the park determine that all livestock oriented agriculture is cruel and demeaning to animals and unionizes them, we should gratefully starve, build a statue to Mrs. O’Leary’s cow, take the rights of chickens to smash their eggs to the supreme court, provide free healthcare, a dental plan, retirement, guarantee home ownership, apologize for our carnivorous past, and make further reparations? Too much? I agree; a chicken would never smash its own eggs.
… “we don't want our kids working from sunrise to sunset.”
But of course not citizen Mike!... We’ll use them for this:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/occupy-dc-protesters-use-toddlers-block-exit-reagan-tribute
Hmmmm… running late. I’ll spare you the gratuitous closing.
TTFN ;)