Jump to content

American Swindle

banned
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

Posts posted by American Swindle

  1. On 12/17/2019 at 9:48 AM, Biff Tannen said:

    Again, fiction.  

    I'll say this one time:

    Biden was conducting not only the US government's foreign policy, but also had the backing of the rest of the free world, when he pushed for the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.  This prosecutor had been proven to be corrupt and not actually investigating any corruption in Ukraine that he had been appointed to do.

    The firing of this prosecutor, and the subsequent hiring of a new one, INCREASED the chances that Burisma would be properly investigated.  So not only did Biden do nothing wrong, HE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.

    I guess if you're a statist and love the Empire all this stuff makes so much sense.  Foreign aid for everyone! We need to be everywhere militarily because ole' boogeyman Russia!!  I'm sure you'll agree Hunter's cushy job was part of our foreign policy and not at all a siphoning of our tax dollars (so called foreign aid) as a crony favor to a sitting VP's son.

    I'm against foreign aid.  We take money from poor people and give it to rich people in poor countries so they can then give it back to our crony politicians that set up the deals.  Do you consider that the workings of morally altruistic and principled apparatus?  

    Furthermore, the TDS crowd along with the Trumpers will never make the case of actually impeaching Trump on war crimes (a few exist in both camps I suppose,) because if that suppressed truth were to become mainstream, then it would put the last 4 administrations (Both D and R) under the same scrutiny and further drive the point that the MIC and Deep State are the ones running the show.  
     

    But there's no Deep State!! haha.

     

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 2
  2. 1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

    The rest of your post has some debatable points, but this is just simply not correct.  This is not what happened.  STOP PARROTING THIS LINE.

    What happened then?  Trump was trying to damage his political opponent?  

    I suppose it's a conspiracy theory to think that perhaps the previous administration (Obama) abused it's power to spy on a political opponent (Trump,) but not a conspiracy theory when a sitting President is trying to get to the bottom of a previous administration's abuse of power or corruption?  

    It's just a little double-standardish in my opinion.   

    All we need now is to just monitor every politician's phone calls (who can even do such a thing that's not an alphabet IC agency?) and throw all of the bad actors out!  

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 2
  3. NSIAP.

    I'm not really getting the adoration for Pelosi whatsoever.  She literally knew that the reasons we sent our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq were bullshit, but doesn't consider the Bush administration's campaign of lies to get public support of the war or the act of going to war which led to over 4000 American Soldier deaths, over 400K deaths, and over 2 Trillion in tax dollars wasted at all an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.

     

     

    But Trump trying to get to the bottom of corruption from a previous sitting VP from a previous administration by talking with another country?  That's where she draws the line? Interesting and very telling.  

    Also interesting is that they won't impeach the Trump for aiding the Saudi Regime in their war crimes against the Yemenis.  Do you see the trend here?  It's okay to support the Empire but not okay to scrutinize the deep state or the lifetime politicians that have raped tax payers with their crony deals with other countries.  

     

     

     

     

    • Fuck You 3
  4. It's great to see so many Surly brethren concerned about corruption in government.  Maybe the anti-war community could respect the take below as I see at as the correct way to look at what should really constitute impeachment.  Yeah, I know, not a popular opinion around here. 

     

     

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 10 hours ago, Blotto said:

    What am I missing here? The outrage by Tucker and the Bugle chick seems to be that the military operations conducted in 2017 and 2018 against Syria were orchestrated by the US Government and our allies on false pretenses? The US government led by, let me check my notes. . . .  The Trump administration and his merry bunch of fucktards?  

     

     

     

     

     

     Confusing time we live in. So confusing Tucker momentarily forgot whose dicks he gets paid to suck. 

    Trump was conned into following through with the bombing campaign.  It was an atrocious act and Trump deserves criticism for it.  

  6. Here's a free market approach to surgeries.  I know Oklahoma sucks, but this surgery center does not

     

     

     

    Also an interesting podcast episode:

    https://tomwoods.com/ep-481-how-capitalism-can-fix-health-care/

    Dr. Josh Umbehr operates a concierge family practice in Wichita, Kansas, and counsels doctors about making the transition to direct care, bypassing insurance and government, through Atlas.MD. He ran for lieutenant governor of Kansas in 2014 on a ticket with his father, Keen, at the top.

    A point made in the episode is that Doctor's, having spent 12years plus learning a specific skill, have little business acumen when it comes to the operational side of their practices so they usually just roll with entrenched system as it is.  

    Anastasis, what are your thoughts on the Surgery Center in OK?  You heard of them?

    My wife was looking at a hip replacement and they do them for 15K cash. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe we should embrace free market capitalism for a change.  Please don't confuse it with crony capitalism or "crapitalism."  

     

     

  7. 13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    The fact remains that it looks like Tucker was correct on Syria. I’d like to see links to any other news hosts that showed the ability to question something that made so little sense. The whole story immediately smelled like bullshit, but so many people lapped it up. Pathetic. 

    I know it's fashionable for the left to bash Tucker, but when it comes to the realities surrounding our Empire's tendencies for meddling in other country's affairs, I could care not where the information comes from as long as it's the truth.  

    The mere fact that this doesn't outrage most of the population to the degree that say Trump's tweets do is a sign that the info war is being won by the establishment.  The "Assad Gassed his own People" narrative was a farce and one that lead to us dropping bombs (which everyone so passionately a patriotically oogled over when it was done.) on a sovereign nation.  No big deal. Oops sorry Syria, you were just another sovereign country that got caught up in our Empire's blood lust for control of the ME.  

    When is enough enough?

     

    • Like 1
  8. On 11/18/2019 at 3:59 PM, American Swindle said:

    Hmm.....? Could that whole "Assad Gassed his own people" narrative been a false flag to rally support for our interventions in Syria?  

     

     

    Tucker was right, we were lied to.  

     

    Maybe that's why the establishment is hell bent on smearing Tulsi, because she actually got the information directly from Assad that the Chlorine Gas attack was a false flag operation to rally support for more intervention in Syria.  

     

    But Russia!!!! lulz.

  9. The same as it always was: More Federal Spending, More Wars and Interventionism, More Coups, More Failed Domestic Policies (War on Drugs and Asset Forfeiture,) more Surveillance and More QE and inflating of the currency by the Wizards at the Fed. 

    I find it ironic that while amidst an impeachment proceeding the Patriot Act was extended with bipartisan support to maintain warrantless surveillance powers within the Executive branch (and by extension Trump.) 

     

    Dems: "We want him out because he's corrupt and abuses power"

     

    Also Dems : "But yeah, here's more power for you while your in office, just throw a little signature on it and business as usual! Just don't wire tap our campaigns!" 

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. On 11/12/2019 at 1:05 PM, ryskey said:

    Coup aside, there was a pattern of behavior from Morales that should have given even the most sympathetic American leftist some concern.  If the goal is legitimate, popularly-elected governments in Latin America with a focus on lifting people out of poverty by keeping wealth in the country,  Morales should be recognized by his previous accomplishments but was trending in a way that represented an existential threat.  Those two opinions can co-exist together peacefully.  Use a bit of common sense and this should bother you:

    1.  This would have been Morales' 4th term.  This was an advanced step in the "president for life" playbook.

    2.  His 3rd term was in direct violation of the Constitution that Morales helped create.  The reasoning then was that the first term didn't count, because it began before the modern constitution was adopted.  There was still popular support for him, so ok.  But that is an extremely self-serving interpretation.  World says "you get a hall pass here."  If the standard for succession is George Washington, Morales gets a D+.  Is he their FDR?  On the economy, sure.  Is the bloodiest war in human history currently being waged?  No.

    3.  In 2016, there was a referendum to grant Morales a 4th term.  It failed.  Popular support gone.  Bolivians rejected the idea of Presidente por Vida.  The arguments pro Evo right now (simply MadLibs of the same phrases used to support Arbenz, the FMLN, Allende, et al in the 20th century) are not very credible with the outcome of this referendum.  This situation is vastly different, and comparing them to this Bolivia situation dishonors the reality of those injustices.

    4.  Morales appealed to the Supreme Court, full of Evo appointees and sycophants, to abolish the term limits.  Massive conflict of interests there, and not much in the way of checks and balances.  As expected, they complied, justifying the decision with a flimsy and very ironic human rights argument.  Alarm bells went off.  The popular will of the people had been ignored. The world started watching.  Everything that has happened thereafter can be labeled as illegitimate.  

    5.  The OAS has an imperfect past, but it is the only official audit we have.  Instead of attacking the source, which of these descriptions in the election are inaccurate?  Let's start there.

    - Morales needed at least a 10% margin or greater than 50% of the total to avoid a runoff. 

    - Election officials, also largely directly or indirectly pro-Morales, stopped releasing results when Morales had less than a 10% lead and less than 50% of the total.  A united opposition in a later runoff election likely would have resulted in a narrow victory for Mesa, the opposition candidate. Final numbers were not released until days later.  Morales declared victory with the "final numbers" which showed a margin greater than 10% and total barely over 50%, which had never been seen before.   Protests ensued.  At a bare minimum, this pattern of events looks pretty bad, even if the final numbers are legitimate.  Why did election officials stop releasing results?  The optics are terrible.  

     

    With all that said, the politicians in the US and other OECD countries need to STFU about this.  Stop opining, stop expressing support, just shut up.  Doing so undermines the opposition.  Too much baggage here, and too much bad history in Latin America.  This has all the ingredients for an organic, grassroots evolution of Bolivia's modern Democracy.  Growing pains.  Morales can be recognized for his accomplishments.  He could have honored the referendum, given his full support to a hand-picked successor who would continue the agenda of the MAS and his own presidency, and cemented his legacy as the father of modern Bolivia with a peaceful transition of power.  And we would not be here right now.  There were cracks showing in Morales' base, enough to put his popular mandate at risk.  People who did not want President for Life, and a Venezuela/Zimbabwe starter kit.  But he started viewing himself as God-emperor (new 26 story presidential palace in the continent's poorest country?), and that got in the way.  Democracy has a way of weeding that out, and it was happening organically.  Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

    Quote

    Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

    This. 

    Do you think this principle should be universal for all countries?

  11. On 10/30/2019 at 4:37 PM, DixonHur said:

    Bernie is totally a socialist.  But we've been programmed to interpret that as a bad thing, so the knee jerk reaction is to say they aren't socialists.  In and of itself, socialism is a good thing.  I'd argue that the US is already a socialist country, it's just a matter of HOW socialist.  The government collects taxes and redistributes it in the form of common defense, roads, schools, libraries, etc.

     

    You forgot to throw in 15K$ hammers for the Pentagon, bombs that are dropped to kill brown people in the form of collateral damage, lavish pensions for those in our government, a Dept of Education that re-invents new ways to do math to sell new math books, a system of funding that is set up to incentivize all governmental bodies to not save tax payer dollars, crony banking institutions that are too big to fail, a social security ponzi scheme, a failed war on drugs, and an Empire that has bases in 130+ countries.  

     

    We've been programmed to think paying taxes are a good thing.  

    You see, a free society can't exist under socialism, but a socialist society can exist under a free market, libertarian society.  If property rights are respected, conflicts are to be avoided and we all agree to live by the non-aggression principle, then socialist groups can exist.  But if it's the other way around, then voluntary exchange cannot happen as you have everything centrally planned by a body that thinks it knows how best to allocate resources better than you and I.  Force is required instead of voluntarism.  

    If anything, Jesus compelled others to do good and lead by example, he did not go to the Roman Government and have them force others to do good deeds.  

     

     

     

  12. On 10/25/2019 at 10:06 PM, jimmyjazz said:

    I don't know how to make this any clearer:  once the primaries were over, the next POTUS (barring death or unforeseen circumstance) was going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  I don't have to extoll Hillary's virtues in order to justify my vote for her.  She was far and away the lesser of the two "evils", and that's all that needs to be said.  Unfortunately, 60M idiots + another 1M or so "message senders" like you couldn't wrap their brains around the threat, and here we are.   Good job, Swindle.  

    How many wars has Hillary historically been involved in facilitating and how many wars has Trump started?  I get why you voted, but I'm arguing the evils are not who's president, it's the state apparatus that always stays intact.

    For example, when we killed Osama Bin Laden were we able to get rid of that pesky ole' DHS or the Patriot act?  Funny, the wars keep on a rollin' and our liberties continue to be eroded.  But yeah, you keep up that good fight in the 2 party theater where principles are never fought for or discussed in any meaningful way, just a bunch of poo slinging.  Good Job Jimmy. 

  13. On 10/26/2019 at 11:22 PM, Anastasis said:

    Lol. The question was about your crush Clinton. 

    Wow, why doesn't it surprise me that any of the Democrats are willing to embrace Hillary and her swath of revolutionary, idealistic principles for which she stands?  

  14. She's not Gary Johnson or Donald Trump
     
     


    I’ll grant you GJ and Weld were not the best candidates for the LP. Weld is a Warhawk and defended HRC at one point. Hell, he was a lobbyist for Raytheon IIRC. I’m a fervent supporter of the Mises Caucus which is at odds with the current LP leadership.

    The major planks from the Mi-Caucs that aren’t emphasized by the current LP leadership are the issues of ending the Fed and the Wars. These are the top issues as they arguable have the most morally hazardous impact on our citizens and notably do not keep our money sound. Hence the rising costs of living, college education healthcare, these are all affected by not having sound money or allowing for free market economic policies. Trumps tariffs for example are interventions in markets that raise the costs of goods.

    All of it, of course, is enabled by the Federal Reserve pulling levers.
  15. I don't know how to make this any clearer:  once the primaries were over, the next POTUS (barring death or unforeseen circumstance) was going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  I don't have to extoll Hillary's virtues in order to justify my vote for her.  She was far and away the lesser of the two "evils", and that's all that needs to be said.  Unfortunately, 60M idiots + another 1M or so "message senders" like you couldn't wrap their brains around the threat, and here we are.   Good job, Swindle.  



    Haha, yeah, okay buddy. Tell me this, how has any President since 2000 limited government, limited government spending, curtailed the surveillance state, promoted true free market capitalism, lessened our footprint in the Middle East, pushed for sound money or a phasing out of the Fed, pushed to actually end the war on drugs, pushed to end or curb civil asset forfeiture, or push for vouchers to allow those that are forced to pay taxes for public school to have a choice to go to a private school?

    Tell me how voting LP based on the principles I believe in are throwing away my vote when none of the above are remotely addressed by our federal government.

    Both parties are for war, spending and limitless government bureaucracy and have always fell in line with whatever our IC wants. So keep telling yourself you made a difference for voting for the shit stain that can’t be bleached away.
  16. What does Gary Johnson have to do with who is morally superior between Clinton and Trump?


    Nothing really. I genuinely want to know what merits HRC has that genuinely make those on the left feel compelled and dignified to persuade others ( not just Trump supporters but Independents, Libertarians and libertarians) why they should support her and her ideas.

    Hell, I’d love to know the same of Trump supporters.
×
×
  • Create New...