We didn't hear the original question, maybe the question was intended or aimed more for US historical leaders only. Maybe Al was cheating, just like he's probably cheating in the election count now.
But I have no problem with humor in politics. I'm gonna laugh at these clowns anyway, they might as well say something funny occasionally.
There WAS a large push for outright nationalization by many Communists during the Depression. It probably made the Wall Street tycoons nervous, so they (FDR was a Wall Street banker) gave the people socialism in the form of Social Security, the New Deal, and all the rest of the stuff that has reduced our freedom and economic prosperity. The Federal Reserve consolidated its power when FDR outlawed the private ownership of gold and continued to debase the currency. The brilliant thing about the New Deal is it gave corporations MORE power and at the same time created the illusion that government will solve problems for the average citizen.
Anyway, Franken is an embarrassing commie freak. I am ashamed to admit I live in Minnesota, so many stupid liberals here, but at least I voted for Coleman. He stinks, too, another tool of the Establishment, but not as bad as Franken who will continue the communist agenda of disarming us and taking more of OUR money. Rich pigs like him get their tax breaks and trust funds. They will NEVER nationalize THEIR personal wealth, like their communist ideology says they should, they just tax the working class enough to keep us perpetually in debt and slaves to their corporate masters.
Actually helldriver, freedomguy is partly right. Russia had just become under communist rule under the Bolsheviks and many Americans and other countries who were suffering economic depression thought that revolution and socialism would be the best solution.
FDR did create social programs, Social Security, the New Deal, etc. but what REALLY got the country out of the Depression was the massive restructuring and mobilization of our military forces and our infrastructure to create war ships, planes, and ammunition. So Social Security and the New Deal was a response to give people jobs while also building up governmental infrastructure, to roads and dams (TVA), but also for armament in preparation for WW2.
GO USA! GO FDR!
As far as corporate control that freedomguy states, this did not emerge until post WW2 when the US adopted a social, economic, and foreign policy to be anything OTHER than communist Russia. This in part meant promoting and protecting capitalism and free trade. This is when the corporations gained control, whereas before, corporations and government were in a cooperative fashion when arming our country with planes and boats. GM and Ford dedicated most of their factories to building planes, etc. After the war, the economy was promoted to be COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the government, unlike Soviet Russia. Thus, it gave corporations more control (somewhat, but not really until under Reagan when he rolled back regulation established by Nixon).
It is a matter of opinion on whether or not the New Deal "reduced our freedom and economic prosperity." In fact, I argue that the New Deal did exactly the opposite. The New Deal reestablished the US to world markets and as a result of the war, ended the global economic depression. Sometimes it is necessary for the government to control the economy for the sake of the people.
Oh, and I meant to add that FDR created the New Deal in hopes of preventing such an uproar and revolution that had been created through the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. He succeeded in doing this. This contention is widely accepted by mainstream historians.
That's the most I've seen you expound on any given political issue! LOL! Good points you've raised, as well.
As to the video itself, I think it both of their answers speak volumes of themselves:
Franken gave an answer that was rooted in a global scale ans was "thinking outside the box", so to speak, and addressed a dark, hideous period in human history and what he might do to fix it, if he was able to put himself in a position to do so. Essentially, his answer revealed an honest concern for his fellow man, in general.
Coulter, on the other hand, gave an answer that utterly betrayed her own narrow-mindedness: she's fixated solely within a small, square cube where nothing exists outside of it. Whe asked by another interviewer what HER idea of "heaven" was, she said everyone "up there" would be Republican and "christian" (no Jews). She's a completely insular, racist and tunnel-minded pus-bag. She makes Palin seem intelligent, by comparison.
Thanks C! I'm glad to expound on any issue that I have time for, and I just hate ppl putting down my favorite president, FDR. In addition, since my studies are in Political Science and History, I have a lot of knowledge in the brain about that and other historical issues. I have recently tried to remain above the fray on current issues, but you will hear me every now and then rant and rave.
One thing that's been pissing me off recently is the fact that Olbermann and all of the other liberals are being pissed off at Congress for acting like Congress instead of doing what the Republicans did under Bush (being blind followers to the president since 2000.) CONGRESS is in its constitutional nature, is supposed to serve as a CHECK on the President and the Judicial Branch. It is not merely a rubber stamp of the President's policies. These commentators like Jon Stewart and Olbermann are pissing me off, because they have no knowledge of how Congress is supposed to act when there is unified government. I am happy for Harry Reid taking a stance against Obama on the Burris issue, because Illinois is corrupt as hell, and the Burris guy is a fraud, just like how Obama was probably elected as a US Senator. I have never liked Obama and I never will, but I am happy there is a Democrat in the WH. I remain EXTREMELY skeptical of Obama's proposed plans. My prediction goes down something like this: He will be a Carter. Boo Hiss. I am a Clintonian myself. Clinton and Carter are basically the opposite. Obama will be a Carter, unfortunately, as far as governing "capabilities" (or lack thereof).
surferbum says sometimes the government should control the economy for the sake of the people. But isn't the economy really the people trading with one another? So should the government control the people? To a certain extent there is a need for keeping people from killing and robbing one another. But this universal SOCIALIST notion of the government controlling the economy is complete bullshit. Especially when it is supposedly to help the people. Look at the kleptocracy that now runs our country. Both Republicans and Democrats tell us we must bail out the banks and corporations for the good of the economy. So many people are fooled by this crap,over and over again. The media brainwashes people into accepting the idea that the money we earn is better used by government, which ends up going into some fat cat liberal's trust fund through their corporate investments, so their spoiled rotten kid can be appointed as a senator someday.
FG - I agree, government is large and perverse because it has strayed from its intended purpose. However, IMO government is intended to be a regulatory controlling entity, but at this time, it is just a broker that transfers tax money from the bottom 96 percent of America to the wealthy top 4 percent. This money transfer cannot be achieved in a regulatory environment, so there is none, and indeed under the pious flag of "free trade" corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign governments purchase the legislation they need to obtain the earnings of the other 96 percent.
Without rule of law, and regulations, there is no law, and no government... just the powerful and wealthy oligarchy imposing their will on the system, with total disregard to the needs of the people, or the country. Hmmm, what country was once a superpower, and is now run without laws or regulations?
Now our government has a constant and continuous transfer of taxpayer money from the working 96 percent, to the imperial 4 percent, via the federal reserve. They have control over government and education, and the they control the media to such an extent that, they have a significant proportion of the 96 percent convinced that when a corporation gets a tax benefit for outsourcing their job, that it is for the "good of America", ...or that that illegal immigration is an "important cornerstone of free trade", and "brings in more money than it exports".
The media is not right or left, liberal or conservative. It is deliberately BOTH, to keep Americans divided and angry at each other, rather than focusing on the real issues. We don't pay any attention to the men behind the curtains, and just continue to be blinded by partisan politics and patriotic bullshit, and send our checks to the fed for transfer to the "wizards of wall street".
"The new document cited an Associated Press investigation that found none of the banks was willing to disclose what they were doing with hundreds of billions of dollars distributed through direct injections of federal money."
Shouldn't the core principle be a "good" government, no matter how big it is?
Efficient, free of corruption, responsible, fair, ethical and just?
Reagan started this government-hating craze when he says "government IS the problem". Since then, it's produced this bizarre mind-set where some folks believe this silly mantra and any and ALL government is bad. They're even terrified of the "S" word.
Tell a lie often enough and it'll be taken as the truth, I suppose.
C - Yes, Regan gave America hatred of their government, by growing it into a massive corporate welfare institution, and lets not forget "Reaganomics", where deregulation, unbound capitalism, and massive debt leads everyone with a job into the prosperity that we have now.
Remember not that long ago when Georgie-Boy wanted to privatize the U.S. Social Security system, and turn it over to the glorious, capitalist "free market"? Well, the Italians did that. And with the current lousy economic conditions brought about by the same greedy whores within that "free market" system, with NO semblence of oversight or regulation.....let's see how that decision worked out for them:
Freedom, I dont think the government should control all aspects of the economy. I just would like to see it regulated sufficient enough so that the market doesn't screw the people.
Canuck, Contrary to popular opinion, deregulation and anti-government policies did not start with the Reagan administration. Nixon, Ford, and Carter were equally promotive of deregulation...but certainly not to the extent of Reaganomics or as George H.W. Bush liked to call it, VOODOO economics.
Oh, and C I forgot to say that pretty much every president has tried to change social security in some way, and have been for the most part, unsuccessful. Nixon was the first president to really try to stomp out Social Security. But old people have stopped it from happening. Now it's mostly the AARP as far as "specialized interests"..but basically same people.
I agree that arming for WW2 ended the depression. I strongly disagree that America would be communist without FDR's new deal, or even that the new deal accelerated the end to the depression. You've hardly proved these points, only given your opinion, which is not shared by many historians.
Massive government spending is not the answer to financial crisis. The government (at all levels) should have to tighten its belt in hard times, just as everyone else does. Running up huge national debts is wrong.
Do you think you will see any reduction of government spending, at any level, during this time of global recession? Fuck no! Will your schools reduce their budgets? Will social security and medicare pay out less? Will the military budget be reduced? All a hearty fuck no. Yet will your average American's income increase? No. Lets just make "maxing out our credit cards" the official government fiscal policy. Its fucking stupid to do as an individual, its fucking stupid to do as a government. Oh, but the government will pay off its debt in good times right? No, the government has no fiscal discipline.
C, despite all the good intentions your government has for you, the reality is our government is often corrupted by special interests, paralyzed by infighting, and incapable of making the hard decisions more easily blown off until future crisis. Your optimistic view of government is not reality. That kind of trust in government is what got Germans Hitler, and the Russians Stalin. Like Reagan used to say about USSR de-aramament, "trust, but verify". Well your government (any government) is similar. Trust them as far as you can throw them, be ever vigilant and watchful of it. If you blindly trust government, it will rob you blind and enslave your children. That's not hatred of government, government is a necessary thing. Its more like gun safety. Necessary vigilence to avoid unnecessary risk of harm.
And the war on terror should not be financed purely on income tax dollars. The government should have to sell war bonds to pay for it, the old fashioned way. That way, no public support, no war funding.
sukitdreamshitfuck...you nothing....you fucking anal surprise.....you leaky cunt discharge....you nasty little dirty fuckin heb....the only difference between your people and pizza, is that pizza's don't fucking scream when you cook'em in the oven. fuckin suck bitch!
heheheheheAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!*SNAP* ouch wetdream...you urt ma peelings.....hahaha.....no wate you weally did urt 'em.....hahahahahayafuc....what?..doon lik ma shit.....doon fucan talkta me....othawise keepet up baby...I doon rind...doon rind atall...maker foon at me spellin an grimma, maker foon atmah oohma...doon lik orah doo Isteall hura...I memmbah voomeet wrestling waste lik you..allways be screaman an sheet bout da eyes burnin....I alwys eat alotah xta hoot cheekan wangs befoe da match...chunks be flyan oot stankin in day eyes an mouths an sheet...one tyme I eet soo mooch..eh gud bellafool..of da debell...an da tuddlah weez joos a wee bet ta cloos to da mat an tutala coovurd'em an da flure en extramant..hehe..da ref din sliped an heet da flure soo hurd et ko'ed 'em...deh toodahla mama daint dank et soo foony neitha, she cum doon ah screaman an woopan an hooleran, dane she slip too..hehe..landan rightin dah ref groween mouth furst, dress flip right oovha er ead..er baby joos wylane tears now..da crowed joos eurpded..fallin right out ta bleechas oovah eech adda be slipin in da pool of ma voomet....dah bebe's mama an ref be coomin too tryan ta get oop an slipan on eachuddah..looken lik to hippoos feetin wit da red voomit...sheet I gootdafucadda'der...nevah voometwrestlan fo me no mo..... lub obf
Franken is mildly funny, but not a great thinker. But he doesn't have to be, becuase his targets are all so bereft of brain cells and bereft of ideas that a two-year-old hippopotamus could tie them in knots.
Franken! Go to Europe and see how you cut it there! And, by the way, take that fat idiot Michael Moore with you.
God bless America.
Franken is a smarmy liberal who gets validated when his fellow pea-brains laugh at his sophomoric wise-cracks.
Remember Franken's talk show on Air America? Of course not, nobody listened to his stupid ravings. At least nobody with an income adequate enough to support the sponsors.
I DID listen to him once, more of the usual liberal bromides: "Boy is George Bush stoopid, HAW HAW HAW", "Republicans don't have any COMPASSION", "The rich are ruining the country because they are so GREEDY", blah blah.
I do agree with that liberal assessment. Rich people like George Soros, who funds felonious liberal organizations like ACORN, and Al Gore who is running the carbon credit trading scam, fueling it with the global warming hoax, are the greedy ones. But of course liberals are aiming their hatred at business owners who actually produce something of value.
Franken was on Air America and that for the most part was subscription on satellite radio. So you can't really blame him for the show's failing. You say that the "media" is controlled by liberals. Do you count half of the newspapers in America and pretty much all of talk radio, too? Somehow I think you are missing something in your equation from your statements before saying that you think that the media are liberal.
Air America was on radio broadcast in liberal Minnesota, for some time. It failed miserably, even here, were Franken may have been elected. So maybe Franken's toned down views are acceptable, but his hard-core liberal talk show was apparantly unpalatable to most everyone.
Comments (50)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.