What is Digg?209 Comments
- cnot3, on 12/14/2007, -6/+48Wake up and smell the fascism.
- SeethisPass, on 12/14/2007, -2/+36We don't want or need secret government.
If it can't be known it is probably very wrong.
We must be strong enough to live with the truth or else we are too weak to make it anyway. - Albionshores, on 12/14/2007, -0/+30From the documentary, Duane Clarridge former head of the CIA's Latin American Division:
"We're going to go on protecting ourselves because we go on to protect all of you. We'll intervene whenever we feel it is in the need of our national security interests to intervene and if you don't like it, lump it. Get used to it world, we're not going to put up with nonsense." @1hr 6mins
That little CIA diatribe could be applied to any protection racket. So much for non interventionism. So, no, we'll look after ourselves if it's all the same, just please stop going around making the world a nastier place. - SuperMoses, on 12/14/2007, -1/+25This movie should be part of the high school curriculum.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -0/+16And you are the brave keyboard warrior fighting for AMERIKA?
- SuperMoses, on 12/14/2007, -1/+13You're a tool.
- colonelbuckshot, on 12/14/2007, -3/+14Democracy means 'rule by the people', and it is a relative concept. There is a world of specific issues the people have a say on, and their say for the most part comes down to handing in a vote every 4 years to one of 2 political parties who are influenced by the same old political lobbies, think-tanks, corporations etc. Ron Paul is at least a breath of fresh air in this sense.
- brasso, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11Just watched the whole thing and there where no damn conspiracy theories. Dugg.
- Albionshores, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10As an offshoot, ask yourself why there is a yellow trim to those flags behind GW in rpi22's picture.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm - meez, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11Patriotism is for suckers.
- sfacets, on 12/15/2007, -0/+9Why has this received so few diggs? Self-criticism is healthy.
- Jlaugh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Leftist are the only decent Americans left.
- DarkRabbit, on 12/14/2007, -3/+11I love this documentary. :)
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -4/+12I hope, for our sake that someday soon we stand up and take back our country from these ***** fascists.
- mattewood, on 12/15/2007, -2/+10Americans seem to have no qualms with the interventions of their country in other nations.. yet they also will and do fight at all costs against other nations or ideals which are to someone else's benefits.
If it's alright for America to intervene in any other nation for the good of their own national security and prosperty, then why would it not be alright for China to intervene against any other nation for the good of their national security and prosperity?
Americans should ponder their history when reflecting on the future of imperialism which will likely be led by the Chinese.. they are positioned to become the next empire, and America is already showing signs of their own roman failure.
As a Canadian, I honestly don't know who I would prefer more to master the world, China or the USA... my real preference would be for no singular nation to rule the world and for everyone to treat each other as they would wish to be treated. - mattewood, on 12/14/2007, -7/+15Awesome video!
Democracy and free market capitalism will never work together for the good of the people.
Democracy requires socialism. (of the people, for the people)
Free market capitalism requires authoritarianism. (for the good for a few)
Pick one. - synarchy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Great documentary. Fails to examine the role of the soviets and socialist revolutionary elements, but reveals much about the manipulation (murder, corruption, deceit, torture) in Latin America by the CIA on behalf of the Washington and Wall Street elite. The clips showing the complicity of the U.S. mainstream media reveal the total bankruptcy of that "profession".
The sad truth is that the CIA was only giving those countries the same flavor of "democracy" we in the U.S. already have...
At 1:10:09 in... "An illusion of marketing and spin. This brand of democracy meant that whoever you voted for, the policies would be broadly the same, and your country's economy would be in step with the United States.Washington would be your closest friend. Or else."
Google Carroll Quigley with more on this theme:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…. [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies.” - tgc1, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7It's not likely to happen. People are too sedated right now. The people have drank the cool aid, and they like the taste now. There's no way to make the people see the truth when they don't really want to see it. If people were pissed off, they'd do something about it. I think, generally, people KNOW they're being taken for a ride, but the stakes aren't high enough for them to do anything about it. They've still got their TV's, a feeling of freedom and so on. But take their TV's and i'm sure you'd have a war on your hands.
- Jlaugh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Most of the information we classify is what we know about our enemies. Our enemies already know what their doing so we are not hiding anything from them. So the purpose of classification is to keep our enemies for knowing we know what they know, and to hide it from the American public.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8I sincerely hope you get shot in the face while hunting.
- sgtpppr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7You missed the entire point of the video and I seriously doubt you actually watched more than 10 minutes of it. The point is America pimps out 'democracy' and 'freedom', but they have toppled democratically elected gov'ts time after time after time. You can't be for democracy and then invalidate an election simply because you don't like who won. That is not democracy. In the meantime, the US has generally replaced elected gov'ts with fascist/totalitarian US-friendly gov't. South and Latin America are results of this 50+ year policy by the US to keep these people poor and dependent on the US.
- adosoftinc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Wow, just wow. I just finished watching the whole thing. Take the time and watch the whole thing.
- Albionshores, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8I would love to hear you explain what a 'Leftist' was. My money is on you not having much of a clue.
- zephc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7I think the type of government doesn't matter(1) as much as the scale of it does. After you reach some population critical mass, governments tend to start abusing power and the mob of the masses tends to become unmovable.
(1) Doesn't matter *Up to a point*: a fascist/authoritarian town may be easier to leave from than a fascist/authoritarian country, but it still sucks living there. - terrordome, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Please. He tried to do away with term limits, big deal. The US didn't have them until after FDR. France doesn't have them. Sweden doesn't have them. The UK doesn't have them.
- Delphium226, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Behold - a twit.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9Anyway...just like communisms, democracy only works in theory. Well it did work for a while and is way better than others but still vulnerable to tyranny.
- mattewood, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6I would never have imagined this film being sold to the box office.. who would pay money to see the reality of their complicity in destroying the worlds people?
Nobody would pay.. so although funding is a major issue in the production of a film, I can't see profits being the sole model in this films creation. It's just a stark punch in the face history lesson. - sgtpppr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6The biggest problem is that intervention and invasion is justified through 'national security'. If a country does not allow the US to place a military base inside it's borders, then it is not helping the US cause and is a threat to national security. If a country does not sell necessary resources to the US at a good rate (and usually an unfair rate charged to other buyers like China), then it is 'hostile' to the US and is a threat to national security. This has nothing at all to do with democracy, but has everything to do with control.
- rpi22, on 12/14/2007, -2/+8http://www.geocities.com/ifthethunderdontgetya/bus ...
- inactive, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7you're wrong.
- alittletoohigh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Regardless of your political opinions this video is crucial to stimulating debate.
In the video Pilger is painting one side of history, a history that is often excluded in popular media. This is excellent, however, in the end it is just that: One side of history. - Toshibi, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6I'm an anarcho-capitalist sympathetic minarchist libertarian, and have often wondered about this myself. Of course, the solution lies in the notion that not all people are the same or think the same. You, having come from the left, expect a certain amount of statism to accomplish charity. I disagree with the idea of forced wealth redistribution, so feel that people would be willing to help those who are less fortunate freely if allowed to use their money as they see fit, and of course, people such as yourself that worry about the poor and unfortunate, should lead the charge in a situation like that.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Pollution from Boston and Detriot, smog, floats up to Canada each year.
We stopped an American invasion force before they attacked, one a war with the United States, and schooled them at hockey.
We're lucky to have successfully protected what we have, you act like were getting some sort of charity but were the ones with all the resources, and even our money is worth more. - WiseWeasel, on 12/14/2007, -9/+14Free-market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democracy, and until you can come up with a system that serves our mutual interests better, I think I'll stick with this whenever given the option. Decentralization of authority in the highest degree physically possible is the best method of ensuring a system that works to the benefit of the greatest number of people. Power is exponentially more susceptible to abuse when concentrated in fewer hands. With the internet, it has never been so easy to harvest the wisdom of large groups of people to drive broad-based political movements.
- darkhero, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7U.S ***** up my country too. Supports War Lords like Abdillahi Yusuf. Bastards! Long Live Somalia.
- AdamGeld, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6I do not believe the majority of "Leftists", hate the US. They hate those in the US who are dismantling the foundation of the country. The US was not founded on the principles that we have now. This is not Rome.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6Here let me do you a favor.
Karl Marx theorizes that Capitalism is not sustainable, eventually it decays into a Fascism, where the wealthy Business interest controls most of the government. This leads to an inevitable crisis. He argues that the next evolution beyond Capitalism, is Communism.
I'll also add that Communism and Democracy aren't mutually exclusive, you can have a communist democracy. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6You must be an American.
- terrordome, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Authoritarianism doesn't equal authoritarian government. The hierarchies of private property are authoritarian, hence free market capitalism requires authoritarianism.
Abolishing the government under capitalism would be a nightmare for the vast majority of the people, and the wet dream for the very few capitalists. - sherrife, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6Can I ask a non-antagonistic, genuine question:
How would free-market capitalism support those on the fringes of society, with very little money, such as those who are homeless, those with an incredibly rare disability, those who are just generally too unskilled and/or uneducated to get a well-paid job. All of these people have very little buying power - very little 'democratic voice' as you see it).
I'm interested in seeing some responses from my fellow libertarians, as I'm a libertarian from the left, and I see this issue as the fundamental problem with anarcho-capitalism. - Jlaugh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Interesting because there both google.
- siszam, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5Don't think for a minute that all Christians voted for or support Bush. Those who actually read the Bible and do as it says support Socialism and things that help people. The Republican party is only second to fascism when it comes to being the polar opposite of Christ like behavior. I don't think people hate Christians. I think they hate what fake Christians do while hiding behind Gods name.
- 3th0s, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Phenomenal. Great interviews, both with local people, their leaders, and the blindly ignorant puppet elitists, and their CIA Jackals.
Dugg. - Jlaugh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4A free market would be an economy not dominated by cartels and monopolies. Our market is not free it's owned by a big club in Manhattan. A truely free market would allow for competing economic models. Private business cannot compete with public or government business.
- synthpop, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5its kinda like being the son of a mafia boss. we know that what our dad is doing is wrong, but we also really love all the cool expensive ***** he buys us. The American lifestyle would not be so comfortable if it wasn't for the occasional "whacking". nothing personal of course, it's just business.
- Jlaugh, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Hey you posted this further up the page.
- ConAmoreEFuoco, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4It was amazing how he advocated unrestricted murder, just in order to protect American 'interests'.
- thorie79, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4The same media propaganda machine used to try to control the people seems to be in effect in the U.S. I wonder if Americans are willing to, like in Venezuela, give life and blood to overthrow a government that has rigged electronic voting and a government police force ready to spy on and kill its own citizens deemed "terrorists" or "traitors". Every generation needs a revolution against tyranny and corruption of government. The republic depends on one thing to ensure it's survival - active citizens willing to cleanse it's own government of tyranny as it sneaks into power under the guise of protecting you. US people have not done that. And as we wake up, we realize we are long overdue for a revolution.
- Albionshores, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4I too consider myself a libertarian from the center ground (center of the spectrum not U.S. center which is off to the right). A libertarian need not be opposed to social programs - at the moment there is a current misunderstanding that Ron Paul is libertarian therefore if Ron Paul is against a Universal Health care program then all libertarians must be opposed to them and that is simply not the case.
A major crux for myself in sorting my own head out on this and understanding what I believed was in understanding that a libertarian looks to empower individual rights (opposite of libertarian being authoritarian - see politcal compass link at the bottom to clarify) and understanding what these rights are. People tend to band the word 'right' around, "I have a right to do this" or, "I have a right to do that", when they don't understand what 'right' means or how it applies. It seems like an easy question to answer but the more you look into it the term 'right' seems to remould itself.
You ask how to implement say a 'poor or homeless' program and pay for it without imposing your will on another individual in the form of taxation. The first answer I feel lies in corporate personhood. The second answer lies in the type of taxation - Income tax, essentially an unethical tax that imposes itself. All personal tax is potentially an imposition so needs to be of a voluntary nature where the individual is concerned. Whilst WizeWeasel was saying a free market was an expression of democracy (and I agreed with him) that is not the same as saying is democracy. We (or at least I, since I cannot speak for weasel) were not advocating that a rich person, on having more buying power, should have louder 'democratic voice' - again this avenue of investigation will come full circle back to corporate person-hood and a typical libertarian view that it must be removed.
A free-market, typically a bastion of the right wing, is essentially a market without subsidy or government intervention and subsidy is the one thing that keeps the poor-poor and the small out of business. Regularly 3rd world countries argue that rather than aid they would prefer developed countries to drop their own subsidies which mean 3rd world farmers can't compete. A government subsidising its own crops means the farmers can sell at less than the cost of production and still make a profit. Free-market (a market without favouritism or subsidy) goes hand in hand with libertarianism but I would argue can also be made to agree with center-ground politics where traditionally it does not belong.
The Libertarian dilemma is can one marry rightwing economics with leftwing cultural reform? I believe you can and the answer starts where I led off.
Some brain candy regarding corporate person-hood:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-396979279 ...
Political compass link which helps to put political alliances in context:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Other than that I don't want to derail a thread so, if you want to, give me a shout. But the short answer to your question is that a free-market needn't be exclusive of government which runs social reform. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 