Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: There Is No Free Market

Posted 2 months ago on Feb. 4, 2014, 6:34 a.m. EST by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Economists have lied. They have, they have lied. Repeatedly, and often. There are no FREE MARKETS - they do not exist. Free markets do not exist and never have, no matter what economists do insist.

To prove that economists do lie, repeatedly and often, consider the term:

Externality

And the short version:

http://economics.about.com - Definition: An externality is an effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.

What a crock of shit.

And why is this such a crock of shit? Permit me to be brief:

If I fire an arrow over the house, and it lodges in a repelican breast, is this effect, whether negative OR positive, is it external to my having fired the arrow?

The term externality is simply a linguistic charade, a sleight of hand - or rather, in this case, a slight of tongue - a contemptuous abuse of the public intellect. By simply restating the case along with the presentation of various charts and graphs illustrating the function between selfishness and market forces they confound and confuse a very simple legal principle.

That of Negligence.

The implication of their behavior is that if you are of modest means, income, and, most importantly, of property, then any damage or loss sustained by you as a result of economic activity, or externality, is somehow mitigated by the selfishness that produced that economic activity, because the loss sustained falls somehow, outside of that activity. And when that activity produces what can only be called a business model dependent on a manufacturing process that poisons the air we breath and the water we drink, and that model becomes sufficiently pervasive and monolithic, we all collectively shrug our shoulders, say little or nothing, rendered into a state of catatonic and conditioned helplessness . . .

Witness . . .

London's Great Smog

.

Economists lie, they lie often, they lie because they must. Monied interests demand it of them.

There is no Free Market. It is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be, and this is a fact they know well.

Consider:

What is a medium of trade

A medium of exchange is an intermediary used in trade to avoid the inconveniences of a pure barter system.

What is money?

a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

and finally, consider that money as a medium of trade not only has production costs, it is subject to commodification, necessitized, and hence, subjected to the laws of supply and demand.

In the face of inflation we are forced to borrow while our wages stagnate, against a future which is uncertain and at cost determined by those who possess the medium of trade in sufficient quantity as to control its supply - as if the whole world works in the company mine, lives in the company town, and is cheated at the company store . . . every day.

We are, it seems, no more human. We are become something else, and that much more mundane. We have been commodified. We are a product. We are consumers. Consumers whose necessity has been manufactured, whose own lives are bought and sold on the open market, where we have become the property of another.

Our Liberty, it seems, has become an integral component and entirely dependent upon our ability to consume - to consume where all that is sold is a lie, and the stomach remains empty no matter how much one consumes.

.



.

On Philosophy -


On the Surveillance Industrial Complex -


Other -

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 3 weeks ago

nope - no free markets. Just like lunch.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26707) 2 months ago

Here's 25 examples of what the "slaved" market accomplishes.

None are pretty pictures.

http://www.alternet.org/25-horrifying-images-free-market-work

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

thanks - now I need to go puke.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26707) 2 months ago

That's without showing the ultimate accomplishment.

Global warming.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

I think it was the pink slime . . .

[-] 1 points by shooz (26707) 2 months ago

Yum!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

so there - most of what I've said this month can be found very easily.

Hang me with it.

Go ahead.

I'm really kinda sick ah you silly fukers anyway.Z.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

gsw wrote: Obama has given in to the fossil fuel industry...he's laid the foundation for fossil fuel next 40 to 50 years" Bill McKibben and cited the following link: http://billmoyers.com/episode/bill-mckibben-to-obama-say-no-to-big-oil/

Which is nice, except the President is being asked to push back against big oil, which as we have seen, has resources with which to push back. Of course, there are those who will argue that the President is a lame duck and can therefore do what he wants.

Which may be true, but does not change the fact that to do anything will require cooperation of Congress. They will need the cover of a movement of people demanding action. As it happens that is exactly what McKibben is calling for:

  • “Most people understand that we’re in a serious fix,” McKibben tells Moyers, “There’s nothing you can do as individuals that will really slow down this juggernaut … You can say the same thing about the challenges faced by people in the civil rights or the abolition movement, or the gay rights movement or the women’s movement. In each case, a movement arose; if we can build a movement, then we have a chance.”

Yes, we have to build a movement.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 months ago

I am superman and I have all energy

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LocalConcepts (6) 2 months ago

Decentralize and get as much control back in the hands of your own local market. It might make sense considering the amount of political and market consolidation in this current structure.

They have a harder time controlling things when its local, when its grass roots, its more real. Its people working with people without the help of outside influencers who are only there to increase their own power.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26707) 2 months ago

We are all externalities, to the super citizens, we call corporations.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

no,no, we are not just ancillary to economic activity, we are instead both ancillary and product - a commodity to be bought and sold.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26707) 2 months ago

Whichever maximizes investor ROI.

It's in the charter.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 months ago

money is needed to exchange goods and services

money is subject to supply and demand

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

what do you think of this - President Barack Obama began his answer with a strong statement: "I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known."

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

How much time do you have?

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

I have time to read if you have time to write - just wondering - trying to get some clarity here. I agree with your post and think that a more informed population on this subject would be a big step on the way to a better world. all of our (ok, almost all) of our politicians have to pledge allegiance to the god of the "free market" and it is a cruel joke.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

why? Why should I entertain your nonsense? When it is clear you have every intention of completely ignoring the obvious impact of the political and cultural realities with which that man must contend every single day . . . why? Why should I feed your quest for ammunition? Why would I bother?

It simply defies logic . . .

What the President said was simply true. With that truth goes the unstated reality, something that in this instance he has said repeatedly:

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 months ago

We can do better

Whenever He says that - He should look directly into a mirror and address Himself - consciously address himself.

As for One Thing - The All of the above energy stance of his (?) = INSANITY

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

what part of what I asked or said was nonsense? and how could answering the question give me ammunition. for sure you know nothing about my intentions so how about somewhat normal conversation. lastly how can it be true "that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known" and as you posted that " Free markets do not exist and never have." now that seems to me to be what our great state department planners called "a logical illogicality." we don't need to continue if you are afraid I might get ammunition.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

When the President used the term it was not his intent to restructure the way we think about the economic system in the U.S. or the western world.

Why are you attempting to get me to take his words completely out of the context from which they were provided?

Do you dispute that the U.S. is the richest nation on Earth? . . . let me guessss . . . Probably not . . .

Connotatively I find the phrase free enterprise system much less misleading than free market - but even so the sheer repelican.libertarian hypocrisy is laid bare if it proves the allegations of one Joseph Stack regarding tax legislation are in the least accurate - but never mind.

just never fukin mind

libertarian fukin scumbags

[-] -2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

taken out of context - is that the best you can do? and "free enterprise system" is less misleading than " free market" since the average american makes a clear distinction between the two - sure. and yes the u.s. is the richest nation on earth - which is why it is a shame that so many are in poverty and don't have heath ins etc. we are also "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" no? anyway I understand now about ammunition.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

is that the best you can do?

actually I thought it was perfect. Lets face it, your question wasn't about the President at all, but rather it was about you. It was about you and the twisted way your sick little mind spins everything.

It is neither fair nor is it reasonable to judge the President's performance separate from the environment in which he has had to operate.

And yet that is exactly what his detractors insist on doing, every single time.

Fukin repelicans have been intent on sabotaging not just the President but the entire economy - all in an effort to get their own way. That means they have deliberately sabotaged you as well as each of the rest of us.

O, right - you haven't forgotten, you just never knew.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

You know what is hysterical? Zen has said, multiple times on the forum, there are many instances of they are both the same. But, you're a piece of shit and spend your time trying to find ways of fucking with him and even more time trying to justify it. He will even blatantly disagree with a stance Obama has taken.

It's all about justifying your existence.

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

first of all I think you should go back and rework the grammar on your comment - none of it really makes sense but that second sentence is unintelligible. I assume you are using the word hysterical to mean funny - your response is actually hysterical as in HYSTERICAL! fucking with poor zendog - come on the man uses zen as a moniker - do you know what zen is. and trying to get him to realize that your president is a hard core capitalist is fucking with him? come on girl - grow up - this is ows - maybe you need to check out some definitions. first look up zen or maybe take time off from the site and read alan watts "the way of zen" - it will do you good - really. then do some reading on the founding principles of ows - read graeber's book - "debt the first 5000 years" - it will take you a while and you will have to read it twice but it will be good for you really. your real problem (along with your unzen buddy) is that you see everything that disagrees with your tiny uninformed world view as an attack. this was not an attack on anyone but a discussion to try to come to some understanding. and finally we can disagree here at ows without name calling like this - "you're a piece of shit." can't we?

[-] 4 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

your president is a hard core capitalist

The President is no more capitalist than he is industrialist. He is an author, a lawyer, a member of the political class, and a highly successful African American.

As a politician he has garnered the support of various capitalists, industrialists, and so on, but he is not a capitalist. He is rather a politician. To hear him speak one might even say he is an optimist - and that may help explain some of his success.

The President has done what is necessary to gain high office. You insist that the people have been poorly served by him. Whether that is simply because he is a politician and all politicians are evil, or some other reason is unclear.

Perhaps it is because he is a highly successful African American, ensconced in the oval office, when among minorities it is rumored that an imperative to reach back and assist those behind does exist.

Perhaps your dislike of the President stems from his apparent willingness to disturb those capital elitists that preside over patterns of American consumerism like vultures - but whatever.

He is a politician. As such, he has been willing to assist the aspirations of average American citizens without regard to those differences between us that others are so eager to exploit - and that others do so often exploit, in the name of profit.

YOu simply lack the willingness, - or the intellect - to be able to see when and how neocons have been cut short, by this President - but surely the massive repelican effort to sabotage every initiative he has undertaken has been quite obvious and it would seem quite impossible to over look.

Yet you do. It must be a form of bias on your part. A form of corruption.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

nice response - well thought out and civil - thanks. yes I do have a bias (just to be clear it is in favor of ows and the bottom 80% of the population) and yes you are correct that the president has never owned his own company - as I have - many of them as a matter of fact. I was not specific in my language. he has never really done much of anything except hold public office - just like that other sad sack democrat slick willie Clinton! ............................. the president believes in capitalism and the free market as a philosophy - he is not a socialist or radical in any way. he is a mainstream right of center politician who has to suck up to those in power in order to achieve power for himself. my complaint with the president and the dems is that they preside over the imperial system worldwide (and happily so) and also do all they can to preserve the capitalist system here at home. they maintain the status quo and have no interest in making any real change in the direction of the country. we don't need to go on here - I think you "get my meaning and catch my drift" (all praise to the firesign theatre)................................................... I will leave you with one last thought - you do realize that the department of homeland security is under the direction of Obama right? you do realize that he was very happy to see ows go way right? you do realize that he collaborated with (that little shit) Bloomberg and other mayors around the country to destroy ows - illegally - right? ...from a longer article (edited in the interest of brevity - sorry gf).......... "While the nearly 400 pages of documents DHS released to Truthout Wednesday do not contain any smoking-guns showing that DHS worked with local law enforcement and local government officials "in any wholesale manner," as noted by one DHS official, on the coordinated crackdown of Occupy encampments throughout the country last October, the materials provide deep insight into the agency's interest in OWS and also highlight fears that DHS's actions may have been unconstitutional

[-] 5 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

he is a mainstream right of center politician

With your own words you are unmasked. The blatantly false assertion that the President is somehow right of center is one put out by the Koch Machine and one lame stream media seems happy to repeat. It is a clever device designed to divide and to dismay those among his support base that are not invested in paying attention.

you are a clever little troll I'll give you that. But lets be honest. You don't give a shit about the bottom 80 percent. You don't. As a business owner you are and must be far from anarchist in your sympathies.

It is you who are the capitalist . . . I am certain that you are well aware that any politician who chooses to push back against the influence of money on our political system does, of necessity, require widespread support of the people. This President has all but begged for that support, at various times, in the interest of various initiatives.

Phrases like that quoted above are designed to dissuade the public which might otherwise be inclined, from providing that support.

As far as DHS goes, that is a repelican creation. I'm sure it is staffed with hundreds of loyal fans of BUSHITE. The majority of them will be found near the top, I am sure. Were I to Google, I am certain I can find an instance where the President publicly sided with OWS in the North West.

And I'm sure we know who the real enemy of OWS is:

[-] -2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

a bit less civil but that is to be expected. go ahead and find quote from your president praising ows but as Churchill said -"Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare." - are you telling me the president is not in control of his administration? ......................................... i am a capitalist but do not believe in the philosophy - not the way it functions here anyway. i agreed with your original post - there is no free market! your assertions are not backed up by any evidence so they are meaningless................................... it is pretty easy to show that your president is center right but i will not do it now. also you have never asked me what i think or do so to assert that i do not care about the bottom %80 is also just plain wrong. typical of your tactics and they are not very helpful - do you realize that you would not get away with this type of shit in zuccotti park during the time of "occupy!" no, i doubt it - when the people occupied the park you were in a dark room reading zen literature - no?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

it is pretty easy to show that your president is center right but i will not do it now.

bullshit. Put the crack pipe down.

here is a long list of President Obama's Accomplishments, and below are a few from that list taken at random. None of them support your contention he is center right - THAT is a blatant, bald faced l.i.e.

You simply must be r.e.p.e.l.i.c.a.n.

  • Obama took steps to improve minority access to capital. http://bit.ly/f9xVE7

  • He created a $60 billion bank to fund infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges. http://bit.ly/e1SSaQ

  • He implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs. http://bit.ly/ibhpxr Many are of the opinion that he saved the entire auto industry, and even the economy of the entire Midwest. http://bit.ly/gj7mt5

  • Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost. http://1.usa.gov/ez30Dc

.


.

EDIT: Link is fixed. I missed it earlier. It works properly now. Here it is again, in case you missed it, just for you, you flippin' liar you . . .

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 months ago

the capital was already only accessible by a minority

banks don't do construction

my 1998 works great

where jobs really in jeopardy ?

[-] -1 points by gsw (2727) 2 months ago

" Obama has given in to the fossil fuel industry...he's laid the foundation for fossil fuel next 40 to 50 years" Bill McKibben

http://billmoyers.com/episode/bill-mckibben-to-obama-say-no-to-big-oil/

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 months ago

Ralph Nader called Obama a "war criminal who has been more aggressive than George W. Bush."

Can't say obama is worse than bush but policy of war has not change

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

Haaretz headlined "The return of Richard Nixon," saying:

He "was a conservative national security hawk." Obama promised progressive change. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor. He's done so unapologetically.

"Both were terrified by leaks and recruited the government into the struggle against them. With Nixon, they eavesdropped on conversations of key journalists and officials who were suspected of being their sources."

Obama exceeds the worst of Nixon's lawlessness. He's got technological tools Nixon lacked. He uses them and much more. He does so recklessly with abandon.

Nixon left Washington ingloriously. Obama's free to wage war on humanity. He monitors everyone. He does so to choose targets. He's listening to you now.

He reads your emails. He checks web sites you visit. He knows your medical and financial history. He knows what company you keep. He watches every move you make. He knows what you do, where and when.

He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows everything you do he disapproves of. He's making a list you don't want your name on.

He's intolerant of less than total subservience. He rules by what He sayS goes. Obey or else reflects policy.

Haaretz said " 'Tricky Dick,' who left this world on the verge of the Internet age, could only fantasize about the technological power (Obama) enjoys."

Nixon spied the old fashioned way. He did it selectively. Obama does it globally. He does it with technological ease. Virtually everyone is monitored all the time every day.

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

Ralph Nader called Obama a "war criminal who has been more aggressive than George W. Bush."

Noam Chomsky told Russia Today he wants Obama "taken before the ICC for the war on terror."

He highlighted Magna Carta rights. He called Nuremberg Principles, Judgement and the Charter "part of the foundation of modern international law." Jeremy Scahill's new book "Dirty Wars" calls planet earth a battlefield. Covert and raging hot wars persist. America claims a unilateral right to commit mass slaughter, destruction, torture, and unspeakable atrocities.

Might justifies rights. Nations are destroyed to liberate them. Terrorism is what they do, not us. Code language conceals dark motives.

Reasons why imperial wars are waged are suppressed. Wealth, power, and privilege alone matter. Sacrificing human lives and freedoms are small prices to pay. Humanity's at risk but who cares.

Scahill reported from global hot spots. He and another journalist "were shot at together on rooftops in Modadishu," he said, "slept on dingy floors in rural Afghanistan, and traveled together in the netherlands of Southern Yemen."

America claims a unilateral right to bludgeon humanity into submission. Murder, Inc. reflects US policy. Obama escalated Bush war crimes to higher levels.

America's addicted to war. Obama's committed to wage it. Noncombatants are fair game. Official policy targets them.

Innocent men, women, children, the elderly and infirm are slaughtered. Winning alone matters. Unchallenged global dominance is policy.

America's war on terror reflects waging it on humanity. Wherever US forces intervene, death, destruction, instability, displacement, impoverishment, and unspeakable human misery follow.

Obama's values aren't like yours or mine. He wants fundamental laws subverted for greater aims. He wants state-sponsored murder legalized. He wants new rules giving him clear authority.

He's comfortable about killing. He has no qualms about doing so. He wants unchallenged diktat power. He wants it for targeted assassinations and war. He's heading America for waging it globally.

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

"I would rather have a white president fundamentally dedicated to eradicating poverty and enhancing the plight of working people than a black president tied to Wall Street and drones." ..................In a May London Guardian interview, Cornel West said:

"We elected a black president and that means we are less racist now than we used to be. That's beautiful."

"But when you look at the prison industrial complex and the new Jim Crow: levels of massive unemployment and the decrepit unemployment system, indecent housing: white supremacy is still operating in the US, even with a brilliant black face in a high place called the White House."

Obama's "tied to Wall Street. And at this point he is a war criminal. You can't meet every Tuesday with a killer list and continually have drones drop bombs."

"You can do that once or twice and say: 'I shouldn't have done that, I've got to stop.' But when you do it month in, month out, year in, year out - that's a pattern of behavior."

"I think there is a chance of a snowball in hell that he will ever be tried, but I think he should be tried and I said the same about George Bush."

"These are war crimes. We suffer in this age from an indifference toward criminality and a callousness to catastrophe when it comes to poor and working people."

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

sorry for the order of these comments - I am tired and in a hurry but you get the idea - "The most famous recent case of executive assassination was Osama bin Laden, murdered after he was apprehended by 79 Navy seals, defenseless, accompanied only by his wife, his body reportedly dumped at sea without autopsy. Whatever one thinks of him, he was a suspect and nothing more than that. Even the FBI agreed.

Celebration in this case was overwhelming, but there were a few questions raised about the bland rejection of the principle of presumption of innocence, particularly when trial was hardly impossible. These were met with harsh condemnations. The most interesting was by a respected left-liberal political commentator, Matthew Yglesias, who explained that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers,” so it is “amazingly naïve” to suggest that the U.S. should obey international law or other conditions that we righteously demand of the weak.

Only tactical objections can be raised to aggression, assassination, cyberwar, or other actions that the Holy State undertakes in the service of mankind. If the traditional victims see matters somewhat differently, that merely reveals their moral and intellectual backwardness. And the occasional Western critic who fails to comprehend these fundamental truths can be dismissed as “silly,” Yglesias explains -- incidentally, referring specifically to me, and I cheerfully confess my guilt.

Executive Terrorist Lists

Perhaps the most striking assault on the foundations of traditional liberties is a little-known case brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama administration, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Project was condemned for providing “material assistance” to the guerrilla organization PKK, which has fought for Kurdish rights in Turkey for many years and is listed as a terrorist group by the state executive. The “material assistance” was legal advice. The wording of the ruling would appear to apply quite broadly, for example, to discussions and research inquiry, even advice to the PKK to keep to nonviolent means. Again, there was a marginal fringe of criticism, but even those accepted the legitimacy of the state terrorist list -- arbitrary decisions by the executive, with no recourse.

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

Noam Chomsky: That's a very interesting question. I personally never expected anything of Obama, and wrote about it before the 2008 primaries. I thought it was smoke and mirrors. The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don't seem easy to explain. In many ways the worst is what you mention, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. That's an Obama initiative and it's a very serious attack on civil liberties. He doesn't gain anything from it – he doesn't get any political mileage out of it. In fact, most people don't even know about it, but what it does is extend the concept of "material assistance to terror" to speech.

The case in question was a law group that was giving legal advice to groups on the terrorist list, which in itself has no moral or legal justification; it's an abomination. But if you look at the way it's been used, it becomes even more abhorrent ( Nelson Mandela was on it until a couple of years ago.) And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism. I've met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don't understand why he's doing it.

[-] -2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

and then we have executive assassination - "The concept of due process has been extended under the Obama administration’s international assassination campaign in a way that renders this core element of the Charter of Liberties (and the Constitution) null and void. The Justice Department explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone. The constitutional lawyer in the White House agreed. King John might have nodded with satisfaction.

The issue arose after the presidentially ordered assassination-by-drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of inciting jihad in speech, writing, and unspecified actions. A headline in the New York Times captured the general elite reaction when he was murdered in a drone attack, along with the usual collateral damage. It read: “The West celebrates a cleric’s death.” Some eyebrows were lifted, however, because he was an American citizen, which raised questions about due process -- considered irrelevant when non-citizens are murdered at the whim of the chief executive. And irrelevant for citizens, too, under Obama administration due-process legal innovations.

Presumption of innocence has also been given a new and useful interpretation. As the New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” So post-assassination determination of innocence maintains the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.

It would be ungracious to recall the Geneva Conventions, the foundation of modern humanitarian law: they bar “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 months ago

propagating zen literature

oh dear political double speak again

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

you have to be born yesterday not to realize how dangerous this is.

well hell yeah I realize how dangerous terrorism is . . . it's not only dangerous it is apt to produce some uncertain results . . . which of course necessitates careful preparation and just the right back story to serve as a front cover to the mass of wing nuts and fruitcakes who have no clue who did who or even why but scream they must and scream they shall for that is what they do . . . so long as they all scream nonsense and in unison then we may all be certain that all is well in hand . . .

except I'm not screaming . . . mutherfuker

say . . . did you know? . . . I'm an asshole . . .

.

see that? See what I did there? I just suggested that you are one ignorant mutherfuker . . . and I did that by suggesting that you, somehow, might not be aware of the obvious . . . and that is . . .

only a really ignorant mutherfuker could possibly spend any significant time with me in such discussion and utterly fail to reach that simple conclusion.

you will not like me.

I do not intend that you do.

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

yes terrorism is dangerous which is why I think Obama should stop promoting it the way bush did. and yes everyone knows you are a self proclaimed asshole - and proud of it. so when you are not making my point with your idiotic comments you are stating the obvious! so I have to go now - I have to deal with a 4 yr old - it will be much more intelligent conversation.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

An obscure legal issue cited by Chomsky, which as he points out, few understand or even know about - hardly paints the President as right of center.

  • And this is bullshit given that the President did in fact attempt to close Gitmo and hold trials on US soil . . .

  • Executive Assassination which you reference twice during a time of war where the enemy in this instance uses tactics of insurgency and terror. Like I keep sayin', some people just need killin'. They ain't all al Qaida . . .

  • Haaretz is most likely playing politics to an American audience on behalf of their own conservative leader . . . comparing Obama with Nixon is simply insane and I am certain you can find any number of his positions as Senator that would suggest the exact opposite - and as President, well . . . I don't believe you will find President Obama advocating the use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world . . .

  • And Ralph Nader is a libertarian bullshit artist who played a significant role in handing the Presidency over to BUSHITE . . . TWICE and as such is hardly in any position to quantify Obama's behavior one way or the other. I notice that as you pander to the peacenics you avoid any consideration of Daniel Pearl

You sick fukers really need to come to grips with reality.

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

so let's see here -Chomsky "highlighted Magna Carta rights. He called Nuremberg Principles, Judgement and the Charter "part of the foundation of modern international law." - and then cites "his attack on civil liberties and you call it an obscure legal issue. you then condone the president as judge, jury and executioner - sounds very right wing to me. the rest is nonsense - typical of those who have no argument - attack the person not the substance of what is said. and no attack on cornel - he probably feels left out.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

I've got things to do so I'm guessing you will have to have the last word -

but in any event . . . .

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

Chomsky's point is clear

while I'm inside waiting for coffee to brew and my toes to warm up . . .

yeasyeas of course Chomsky's point is clear . . . provided you are thoroughly conversant in the subject matter, and if not then, as he said stated quite plainly:

  • . . . In fact, most people don't even know about it . . . It is, it seems, so obscure that even Chomsky is not sure what engendered it. Of course, he isn't a lawyer . . .

.


.

dayum I almost forgot . . . again . . .

.

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

so the fact that few people know about it is a statement on the complicity of the media - right? and no knowledge of subject matter is needed - only a basic understanding of english is required to understand what this means - "the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism" - now you have to be born yesterday not to realize how dangerous this is.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

Chomsky can highlight whatever he wants. I have tremendous respect for the man, just because of his position on a French stage regarding free speech. Not that I agree. Given everything Europe suffered during the 20th Century Nazi mutherfukers throughout western Europe should have their heads cut off. But hey. I can certainly respect his position.

and speaking of Nazi mutherfukers

Neonazis in Texas and Arizona have been suspected of running extensive criminal operations on the street from within prison. This includes the assassination of members of the Dept. of Justice.

Some have alleged that a complicated code was used to communicate with the outside, it may even have been broken in one instance, but whatever.

It is known organized criminals operating among the Italian immigrant population have in the past engaged in criminal enterprise from within prison, presumably the Russian gangs have as well.

If I had to guess, I would bet there is something of a correlation between facts of history such as this, the purpose and intent of groups like al Qaida, and this legal issue Chomsky has raised and which you have chosen to cherry pick.

flip mutherfuker flip

[-] 2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

and dog (I am not going to use the zen part until you show me some zen - you do know what the philosophy is right?). this is not cherry picking -.......imagine how it will work when the next republican gets elected to the presidency - they will first declare ows a terrorist group and then we are all facing jail (or worse) for being on this site! no? did I misunderstand something here (and please don't say motherfucker motherfucker as your only response)? read this part more carefully - it is an explanation of the obscure case! ................"The case in question was a law group that was giving legal advice to groups on the terrorist list, which in itself has no moral or legal justification; it's an abomination. But if you look at the way it's been used, it becomes even more abhorrent ( Nelson Mandela was on it until a couple of years ago.) And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism. I've met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don't understand why he's doing it.......imagine how it will work when the next republican gets elected to the presidency - they will come after ows with the same law

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

all good until your last line. as I understand it free speech means nothing if you only allow for speech you find tolerable. interesting - that is the position of every authoritarian - no? as to criminals doing very bad things - even from prison - yes they do. that is why we call them criminal. now if you think that means we should get rid of trial by jury and the rule of law I am not surprised. king George agrees with you - and so do your Nazi types - apparently so does the Obama administration.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

requoting Chomsky isn't likely to be any more persuasive than it was the first time.

Perhaps you were not aware that under the law of BUSHITE I could have been sent to Gitmo and detained indefinitely. I was aware. So I do sympathize with Chomsky's position. Never the less, you have not made the issue clear, what is the precise legal issue here? When did it become an issue? How does it apply and when has it been used?

All of these remain foggy - you can cite Chomsky a third and yet a fourth time, and still, these issues will remain foggy.

It is true - terrorists are a different breed of criminal.

It is also true - The President did try to close Gitmo - twice. Given that fact, it is difficult to paint the President as a closet repelican - and it is unlikely that any politician will measure up to Chomsky's ideal.

.


.

o, I almost forgot . . . . mutherfuker . . .

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

Chomsky's point is clear - that you cannot see it is telling

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

what? you don't like my last line? O HEAVENS!

trial by jury? for members of al Qaida? Lashkar-e-Taiba? Repelicans? Terrorists of this nature represent such a threat to civilization itself that to try them within our current judicial system is to create a mockery of that system. That just will not do.

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

well said - you have made my point - thanks - and thanks for the restraint.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

First of all, you are a piece of shit. You use flip as a moniker. You're the mother fucker that needs to grow up. Take your ass to the library and hit the nonfiction section. You have nothing to do with occupy. Never did.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 2 months ago

It's deliberate - flip - just like the use of the term 80 percent - it's a signal to any other trolls - and possibly his employer - where he stands. Someone wants to be sure they are getting their monies worth.

fukem

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

it is well known here that you are the final arbiter of who is occupy and who is not so I feel very hurt. and you continual use of "piece of shit" is very informative - should really bring the 99% to our (your) side! I can just imagine how it would work - get a group to hold a demo and when the cameras show up do a "mic check" and just rant "piece of shit, piece of shit." now the go to the library part is funny - you haven't said anything of substance since I can remember- no I don't consider "Israel is great" and "the president is our savior" to be substantive and neither does ows - that is their official position - look it up!

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

It is well known here, or it will be-the moment that someone else looks through your posts and realizes that the reason that you don't link to articles is because you are taking them out of context.

I shall laugh when they do.

[-] 1 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

use google - you know how right - and back up your claim. otherwise you have no business on a site like this. seems that ows has enough problems without you and the dog contributing to the internal backbiting! what I post stands on it's own. very obvious to anyone who is not blinded by the star of potus

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

I already have backed it up. It will be fun. Spin, flip, spin.

[-] 2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

nice try

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

It must suck for you to have to post third shift and all. The moment that others begin to read that you are twisting and taking articles and interviews out of context then you are done. I shall laugh.

[-] 3 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

back it up or shut up

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

When you aren't flipping-you're spinning. You're about to spin out.

I've already busted you on it. I am going to laugh.

[-] 2 points by flip (5035) 2 months ago

don't you have to go to work or something - can you try to start contributing something here instead of name calling. seems like ows has enough problems without your adolescent behavior. how old are you anyway? do you really think you are a positive influence here - you are not. I know the dog thinks you are (the self admitted asshole who doesn't want anyone to like him - great addition to ows!). can you find another who agrees? I know everyone else is crazy - right? come on girl - suck it up and move in a better direction. look at this forum. how many people really come here - is it 6 or 10 - doesn't seem like many anymore. official ows website - very disappointing - and you - are you making it better by calling me an asshat? back up your claims or stop making them and get on to something better.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by OWSdefender (20) 2 months ago

sigh.... still bickering... come on!

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 months ago

OWSdefender

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Feb. 8, 2014

And you just verified it.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by OneManOneMind (25) 2 months ago

Capitalizing the word president is automatically puttin yourself and all other "commoners" at a lower level. Removing this false sense of royalty could be something to consider when objectively discussing what this one person said on a television show.

[-] -2 points by chilidip (-34) 3 weeks ago

Most powerful nation on Earth, built on free market capitalism, but the chuckle-head Zen doggshit doesn't believe it exists.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (20535) from South Burlington, VT 3 weeks ago

free market capitalism

it doesn't exist - it's a lie. The market, just like lunch - just ain't free. It can't be.

You don't know why? You value that dollar bill above all else - but you don't know why?

you dumb mutherfuker - must be all of that Fux Snooz watchin' . . .

you dumb deregulationist - ditch the Treasury Department and we'll see just how fast you start screaming for regulation . . . you stupid mutherfuker

and just in case you missed it, you Fux Snuz watchin fool you - the Treasury boys ain't chasin' counterfeiters for free.