next »

[ddickerson]

Out of the mouth of Babes! Honesty! She admits what all the Liberals are too ashamed to admit. 'I'm a Socialist!".

Maybe with her setting the example we can get a little more honesty out of the Liberals this side of the Pond.

Teaser:

Supermodel Elle Macpherson told shock jock Howard Stern Tuesday that she's pulling for Barack Obama to be reelected.
 
"I’m living in London and I’m socialist," she told her host. "What do you expect?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/17/elle-macpherson-loves-obama-i-m-socialist-what-do-you-expect

[BGuttman]

OK.  So one nymphomaniac wants abortion, and Elle MacPherson claims to be a socialist and wants to see Obama elected.

What if she had said she was a socialist and wanted to see Gingrich elected?  Would that have made a difference to you?

I've voted in a number of elections and except when there are three voters, two doesn't make much of a majority.

[ddickerson]

OK.  So one nymphomaniac wants abortion, and Elle MacPherson claims to be a socialist and wants to see Obama elected.

What if she had said she was a socialist and wanted to see Gingrich elected?  Would that have made a difference to you?

I've voted in a number of elections and except when there are three voters, two doesn't make much of a majority.

It's just liberals actually being honest about who they really are. Not everyone is that comforatble with admitting who they really are like these young women. I'm sure they are pioneers and are paving the way so that more will be able to also be honest.

 

[BGuttman]

It's just liberals actually being honest about who they really are. Not everyone is that comforatble with admitting who they really are like these young women. I'm sure they are pioneers and are paving the way so that more will be able to also be honest.

So do you condone the actions of the people who kill abortion doctors?  How about Racists speaking for the TEA Party?

You are really extrapolating.  Just because one extremist says something you impute it to the rest.  It's not fair, and you really squawk when we do it to you.

[ronkny]

So do you condone the actions of the people who kill abortion doctors?  How about Racists speaking for the TEA Party?

You are really extrapolating.  Just because one extremist says something you impute it to the rest.  It's not fair, and you really squawk when we do it to you.

We on the right know there's nuts out there and we acknowledge that.  However, when do you hear about the nuts on the left? Rarely do they make the news and rarely are they identified as libs.  When someone on the right does something or says something outrageous or stupid, they are usually identified as a right wing wacko. 

[ddickerson]

Just because one extremist says something you impute it to the rest.

So you are calling this woman an extremist because she's pulling for Obama and admits that she is a socialist?

Which part of her is extreme? The part that says she supports Obama? Or the part that says she is a socialist?

I mean, I agree if you say that anyone supporting Obama is an extremist.

[Baron von Bone]

So you are calling this woman an extremist because she's pulling for Obama and admits that she is a socialist?

No, you're saying she's a standard issue Democrat because she espouses something you want to attach to standard issue Democrats, or rather that you have attributed to them. I see no evidence you have any clue that your raw, emotional wishful thinking doesn't amount to cold, hard fact.

[SensitiveJohn]

Most Democrats aren't in favor of doing away with the market economy.  Advocating for universal health insurance coverage, provided mostly by for profit insurance companies, is a far cry from socialism.  Republicans, on the other hand, are almost universally in favor of government increasing spending on the military industrial complex.  Republicans have more in common with fascists than Democrats have in common with socialists.

[Graham Martin]

Here is a really good outrage and a bit of a laugh at the same time:

Australian mining magnate Clive Palmer claims that the CIA is funding a campaign to attack the Australian coal industry. The billionaire yesterday alleged that a Greenpeace plan to launch legal action against future coal mining projects was funded by the CIA with the aim of harming Australian industry and helping American interests.

He also targeted the Greens, claiming they were "tools" of the United States government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/cia-hits-back-at-palmer-conspiracy-claims/3903796

This is the same Clive Palmer who until recently was the owner of football (soccer) team Gold Coast United but upset the Football Federation Australia so much that they revoked the the club's A-League licence. Palmer has threatened to take legal action following what he described as a "ludicrous decision".

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/clive-palmer-reacts-to-gold-coast-uniteds-axeing-with-extraordinary-rant-on-frank-lowy-on-twitter/story-e6frf4gl-1226285159432

I guess if you are a billionaire you can afford to take on the CIA or the FFA and not worry about the cost.

What a brainless wanker!

[SensitiveJohn]

I am guessing that the outrage is that the accusation isn't true.  I'm not convinced of that yet.  I'd like to look into it some more.  I certainly wouldn't put it past the CIA to push a corporate agenda.  They certainly have done so in the past such as with united fruit in Guatemala.  However, these things tend to happen during republican administrations.   But then again, the Obama administration has shown a penchant for abandoning principle in order to support the corporate devil.

[ddickerson]

Most Democrats aren't in favor of doing away with the market economy. 

As long as the government can control all aspects of the market economy (facism), they love it. In fact, there is always a 'market economy', the issue is how it is allowed to operate. 'Free markets' means that the interference from government is minimal. Democrats are for more control of the markets, to the point where you can't claim that the markets are 'free markets' anymore.

Just saying,,,,,,,,

[SensitiveJohn]

Markets aren't free when some unscrupulous merchants misrepresent a product (milk watered down and mixed with melamine) or when predatory investors buy up all the competition either.  Of course we need government regulation.

[ddickerson]

Markets aren't free when predatory investors buy up all the competition either.  Of course we need government regulation.

First off, yes, there are bad people in business, because bad people are everywhere. 'Minimal' does not mean 'Zero'.

BTW, it is easier to get rid of a 'bad' company than it is to get rid of a 'bad' government.

[SensitiveJohn]

BTW, it is easier to get rid of a 'bad' company than it is to get rid of a 'bad' government.

Not the big companies.

[ddickerson]

Not the big companies.

Sure it is.

[SensitiveJohn]

Ever heard of too big to fail?

[Piano man]

Again DD, what is your evidence that Elle McPherson is honest about her true beliefs and other liberals aren't?

There's a conservative candidate in Idaho who is an avowed White Supremacist. Can we now say, "Finally, a conservative who admits his true beliefs, that the rest won't"?

It's precisely the same logic.

[Piano man]

As long as the government can control all aspects of the market economy (facism), they love it. In fact, there is always a 'market economy', the issue is how it is allowed to operate. 'Free markets' means that the interference from government is minimal. Democrats are for more control of the markets, to the point where you can't claim that the markets are 'free markets' anymore.

Just saying,,,,,,,,

So the markets were over-regulated when the financial system crashed?

'Over-regulation' is a new byword of the right--it's the excuse used to explain why low taxes crashed the economy instead of causing it to flourish. In fact, regulation is largely good for business.

[ddickerson]

So the markets were over-regulated when the financial system crashed?

'Over-regulation' is a new byword of the right--it's the excuse used to explain why low taxes crashed the economy instead of causing it to flourish. In fact, regulation is largely good for business.

Markets can be over-regulated. It drives the cost of doing business up, and liberals tend to not care if they are over-regulating or not. In fact, to a liberal, there is no threshold where over-regulation can be achieved.

To a liberal, the USA stands for Utopian Society of America, and everytime they 'see' what they think needs 'fixing', irregardless of the cost, they whip out the ugly regulation stick.

[SensitiveJohn]

"The liberal" has learned that some of those in the private sector cannot be trusted.  Hence, "the liberal" has concluded that regulation is necessary to protect the worker, consumer, environment, etc.  However to assume that all liberals, or even most liberals, are not in favor of an appropriate balance between regulation and job creation and economic growth is to be mistaken.