T Nation

Bill Moyers: The 'Crony Capitalist Blowout'

More greed from those who already have too much.

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=75411

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More greed from those who already have too much.

[/quote]

What business is it of yours how much money someone else has? Don’t they have a right to however much money they want? Regardless of whether you think it’s too much?

How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]

Apparently more than “me”.

That is, of course, until “I” have more.

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]

This guy never engages in any kind of discourse or discussion. He just drops by, takes a steaming dump in PWI, then heads off again leaving it for unsuspecting readers to discover. Last time he was recommending Oliver Stone as an historian. I can only interpret it as trolling: repetitively starting threads on idiotic subjects then mincing away in silence.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]

This guy never engages in any kind of discourse or discussion. He just drops by, takes a steaming dump in PWI, then heads off again leaving it for unsuspecting readers to discover. Last time he was recommending Oliver Stone as an historian. I can only interpret it as trolling: repetitively starting threads on idiotic subjects then mincing away in silence.[/quote]

As if I never reply. This is untrue but untruth is a philosophy you espouse to so if fits. Oliver Stone was instrumental in the film portion of the documentary and the other man was the main historian. You wouldn’t know because you probably didn’t even watch it when you saw that Stone’s name was attached. Another knee-jerk reaction from the sheep who is part of the herd.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More greed from those who already have too much.

[/quote]

What business is it of yours how much money someone else has? Don’t they have a right to however much money they want? Regardless of whether you think it’s too much?[/quote]

It is the people’s business when those with too much wealth begin to effect their lives in a negative way.

Who are you to say that it is okay for the minority to subjugate the majority with the power that too much wealth brings?

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]
When wealth accumulation has a negative impact on those around then that is too much.

Why is it okay to deny and talk about cutting social programs that are there to help people survive yet the banks get billions of dollars in bailouts. You have clowns like Lyod Blankenfein and Jamie Dymon complaining about social program expenditures but yet have no problem taking government handouts when it comes to them and the institutions they represent.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

As if I never reply. This is untrue but untruth is a philosophy you espouse to so if fits.

[/quote]

I’m on going on my experience of the four or five threads you’ve started in PWI recently. If I’ve mischaracterised you then I apologise. The reason the curtness of my reply is the frustration I endure seeing someone post revisionist history - i.e., historical ‘untruths.’

[quote]
Oliver Stone was instrumental in the film portion of the documentary and the other man was the main historian. You wouldn’t know because you probably didn’t even watch it when you saw that Stone’s name was attached. Another knee-jerk reaction from the sheep who is part of the herd.[/quote]

Actually no, I know more than I need to about Stone and Kuznick’s mini series and book The Untold History of the United States. It’s title is an homage to Howard Zinn’s 1980 notorious revisionist work A People’s History of the United States of America. FrontPage Magazine did a series of eight articles debunking the Stone’s/Kuznick’s work chapter by chapter:

But you won’t bother to read that will you? Fantasy is more interesting than real history and it serves your ideological agenda.

FrontPage describes Stone’s/Kuznick’s work as:

“…a ludicrous encapsulation of the Kremlin’s view of the Cold War, amplified by the Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hamas version of the post-Communist decades.”

They go on to say:

"It is the well-known views of the Communist left that undeniably constitute the Stone-Kuznick version of the events of the last seventy years, and their portrait of the United States. The fact that Henry Wallace, the hero of their malevolent work, was a Communist and Soviet pawn, is a perfect summary of the pathetic Stalinism that is the heart and soul of the world-view of Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States…

For those too young to remember, Henry Wallace was a former Vice President who was snookered by American Communists into running for the White House in 1948 as the anti-Cold War candidate of the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party was a political front the Communists had created to help Stalin drag millions of East Europeans into his Soviet gulag and slaughterhouse. Two years later, when the Communists invaded South Korea, a chastened and pathetic Wallace went on television to concede that he had been duped into lending his name to a malevolent cause. Wallace died soon after in disgrace."


I’m not sure where I could start with this tome of revisionist crap. Do you really want me to go through this nonsense chapter by chapter? Let’s look at a few of assertions from the book:

  1. Had the US been nicer to Stalin in the 1930’s he would never have made an alliance with Hitler.

  2. Truman was a warmonger who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to terrorise Stalin and thwart his fair territorial plans in Eastern Europe. Japan was actually trying to surrender but Truman went ahead anyway with the bombings to terrorise Stalin into acceding to US/British territorial demands.

  3. The Marshall Plan was a deliberate provocation designed to inflame the Stalin.

  4. The Berlin Wall was a good thing and done in the best interests of peace.

  5. The Korean War started because the Soviet Union was excluded from the peace treaty with Japan and it was an essentially defensive effort by the Soviet Union against the belligerence of Japan. It was also a preemptive war to fend off an invasion of North Korea.

  6. The Cuban Missile crisis was America’s fault because the Soviet Union had been pushed to the brink by the US and had a right to deploy missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to a US first strike.

  7. The 9/11 attacks were America’s fault because the US twarted Soviet peace efforts in Afghanistan and the US used the 9/11 attacks as a casus belli to wage war ‘against two Islamic nations’

That’s just a small example of some of the stuff in this work. Most people would read those things and laugh because they know how ridiculous and false they are. Do you really need me to explain why they’re so ridiculous? Pick something from the book that you believe and I will explain to you what I think about it. Or just pick one of the numbers above and I’ll explain why it’s untrue.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It is the people’s business when those with too much wealth begin to effect their lives in a negative way.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Give me an example of what you mean.

[quote]
Who are you to say that it is okay for the minority to subjugate the majority with the power that too much wealth brings?[/quote]

Ah…I never mentioned subjugation or the ‘power that too much wealth brings.’ You’re projecting your delusions onto me. Take a deep breath.

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]

Well that would depend on how finite the resource is, doesn’t it?

If there are 4 chicken legs on the table and 4 people at the table, how much is too much for you?

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
How much is too much?

I dont want to fail by having to little.

Is there a general consensus on how much actually is too much?

[/quote]

Well that would depend on how finite the resource is, doesn’t it?

If there are 4 chicken legs on the table and 4 people at the table, how much is too much for you?[/quote]

That however, is a false analogy.

Usually “the rich” get rich by providing more chicken legs for everyone and while they consume disproportianetly to other peoples comsumption they cannot by definition consume proportionatly to the wealth they created or else they would not be rich.

So, by “taxing the rich” you disincentivice chicken leg production and while the poor might get more chicken than the otherwise might have,in the shirt run, they get less in the long run because there wont be that much chicken to go around in the future.

Rich people are cool because they served mankind succesfully and in a sharp contrast to all the busy bodies and do gooders out there they have the bank account to prove it.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It is the people’s business when those with too much wealth begin to effect their lives in a negative way.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Give me an example of what you mean.

[quote]
Who are you to say that it is okay for the minority to subjugate the majority with the power that too much wealth brings?[/quote]

Ah…I never mentioned subjugation or the ‘power that too much wealth brings.’ You’re projecting your delusions onto me. Take a deep breath.[/quote?}

Unfortunately, that is the end result of your assertions and implications but you don’t even know it.

Let’s take Big Pharma for example. You can not get fat derived stem cell therapy in the U.S. because it works so much better than the garbage drug cocktails that they invent it would mean a huge economic threat to them. So the American public has to suffer because the greedy pharmaceutical companies want to make them customers in which they can enrich themselves to the detriment of the public.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Let’s take Big Pharma for example. You can not get fat derived stem cell therapy in the U.S. because it works so much better than the garbage drug cocktails that they invent it would mean a huge economic threat to them. So the American public has to suffer because the greedy pharmaceutical companies want to make them customers in which they can enrich themselves to the detriment of the public.
[/quote]

And patients cannot get alternative treatments because of what organization?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

As if I never reply. This is untrue but untruth is a philosophy you espouse to so if fits.

[/quote]

I’m on going on my experience of the four or five threads you’ve started in PWI recently. If I’ve mischaracterised you then I apologise. The reason the curtness of my reply is the frustration I endure seeing someone post revisionist history - i.e., historical ‘untruths.’

You can get the “history is written by the victors” version in any mainstream book. They are myths built on slight truths in order to perpetuate American jingoism.

David Horowitz is a clown like all neo-cons. And as such has to manipulate facts to fit his ideology. For a scholarly and critical view of his book titled The Professors try this: http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/woUsLGhMMPR98xFTxvDWyw/Facts_Count-Report.pdf but I’m sure you won’t as you have already been indoctrinated by the propaganda system in the U.S. which is extremely difficult to break from it’s chains.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Let’s take Big Pharma for example. You can not get fat derived stem cell therapy in the U.S. because it works so much better than the garbage drug cocktails that they invent it would mean a huge economic threat to them. So the American public has to suffer because the greedy pharmaceutical companies want to make them customers in which they can enrich themselves to the detriment of the public.
[/quote]

And patients cannot get alternative treatments because of what organization?[/quote]

Big Pharma

I saw some of “Untold History.” Seemed like a bunch of revisionist trash to me.

Here’s a tip: if somebody is constantly characterizing the United States as an aggressor without a single critical word for the superpower that killed 20 million of its own people, that somebody is a hack with his head up his own ass.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Let’s take Big Pharma for example. You can not get fat derived stem cell therapy in the U.S. because it works so much better than the garbage drug cocktails that they invent it would mean a huge economic threat to them. So the American public has to suffer because the greedy pharmaceutical companies want to make them customers in which they can enrich themselves to the detriment of the public.
[/quote]

And patients cannot get alternative treatments because of what organization?[/quote]

Big Pharma
[/quote]

Ohhhhhh… BIIIG PHARMA prevents you from buying foreign drugs?

Big Pharma makes drugs prohibitively expensive?

And how do they do that?

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I saw some of “Untold History.” Seemed like a bunch of revisionist trash to me.

Here’s a tip: if somebody is constantly characterizing the United States as an aggressor without a single critical word for the superpower that killed 20 million of its own people, that somebody is a hack with his head up his own ass.[/quote]

Have not read or seen or even heard of it, but I resent that every time someone critizises anything, there is always someone who say that _______ were soooooo much worse and the author does not even mention them.

Yeah, Genghis Khan was a bit of a dick, so what?

Is that a license for general assclownery?

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I saw some of “Untold History.” Seemed like a bunch of revisionist trash to me.

Here’s a tip: if somebody is constantly characterizing the United States as an aggressor without a single critical word for the superpower that killed 20 million of its own people, that somebody is a hack with his head up his own ass.[/quote]

Sounds like your describing the American neo-cons so often cited on here as credible and intelligent.