Revealed: What the 9/12 D.C. Tea Party March Was Really About

This film was produced and edited by New Left Media’s Chase Whiteside (interviewer) and Erick Stoll (camera operator).

Please click HERE to watch additional footage from the protests that did not make it into this video report.

Article Tools:  Print   Email

397 Responses for “Revealed: What the 9/12 D.C. Tea Party March Was Really About”

  1. Susan says:

    Pam— Bush came out from the beginning saying he was a Christian. He didn’t have muslim education of any kind. He was born and raised a Christian and remained that way. However, was Bush a good man…..the verdict is still out. I don’t know that I think he cared about the American people as much as he claimed. He duped alot of people, me being one of them in the beginning, but I can admit that he wasn’t what he claimed. As for being born in the country, HE WAS flat out. Don’t you see that their is question about Obama because of his father. Also, his own grandma, before her DEATH, claimed she was flown out to Africa to see him when he was born but that was quickly hidden. Then she died…how convenient. I don’t know if I believe he is a natural born citizen, but I digress. Yes, all presidents have been called names by opposing sides, I agree. Obama did step into the presidency with inherited negatives, but that doesn’t mean he should make it worse than how he came into it. HE IS. He has screwed our economy more than any president ever. Actually, you can add up all the presidents’ deficites and it still doesn’t add up to what he has done with that stimulus package on HIS OWN. I wish Obama supporters could start opening their eyes and admit that they made a huge mistake and start making this prez accountable for what he is doing to our country. He is not a leader of Hope and Change. He is going to be the ruin of any possible Hope and Change anytime soon. I would love to stand behind this guy and to be proud of our first black president but it won’t be this man that does it. He claims he wants to unite, but I think he has left more division and ruin than any president ever, thus far.

    For any of you that want to call racism….please look at yourself and the president you have elected. There is racism, but overall it is by you that call it on others so freely and the man running the Free World, that he is so freely trying to crush. Please research and start asking yourself questions like, “why is the mainstream media not reporting about the Fall of Acorn?” Do you supporters of Obama even know what is happening with Acorn right now? This is a group Obama fully backed and they got him elected. Wake up before it is to late.

  2. amonk says:

    Bertrand Russell Quotes

    Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves.

    Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.

    Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man.

    A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

    The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

    Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred.

  3. snoo says:

    Susan, my friend, my comrade, my true believer,

    Long gone are the days of an American president running the “Free World.” And while we’re at it, define that terminology please. If you had written a submission that was well constructed and considered, I would have had more time for your argument. But your lack of logic and English grammar suggests that you are not a person with the cognitive skills to even construct a written argument that shows reason.
    Yes- what you have written shows an inherent racism that cannot be ignored. Most “rational” countries would give their leader a little more time to prove themselves. The fact that you have such a poor understanding of the dynamics of economics to think that the U.S.’s recent financial downfall was due to, what is essentially, a figurehead that is a facade for the bureaucracy, is indicative of the fact that you (personally) were never open to any change at all. It also shows the fact that you have little understanding of the way your country actually works. Your attempt at argument belies your inherent beliefs. Your national economy has been on the downslide for years. Obama, through his stimulus packages, has been able to somewhat temper the economic drop, and therefore doesn’t yet warrant the criticism for inheriting the flawed system that was looking like becoming far more problematic 10 months ago.
    Seriously, why do people care where he was born? It is like the manager of a soccer team- you get the best man for the job, no matter what. Now, your unsound voting system negates this by being more a process of ‘the wealthiest man for the job.’ That said, internationally, the cognisati have been more than glowing for the way your president has improved the foreign relations of the United States. Your submission shows that you are unaware of how vital this is as countries like China and India will overtake the U.S.A. as an economic and industrial powerhouse in the next 15 years.
    Perhaps it is time to wake up, get educated, and look at the wider picture that is gonna effect your kids Susan.

    Happy retirement.

  4. Jimmy says:

    how can anyone think Obama is trying to destroy the USA? He loves his country and that’s why he ran for President. As for health care, he’s trying to improve it. Aren’t we supposed to be a free and equitable country? I don’t understand why all these poor, uneducated, barely insured folks want the big corps to run their lives unless they’re hoping their kids will become CEOs in the next 5 years.

  5. dobropet says:

    Looks like snoo and susan are classified by amonks post.

  6. dobropet says:

    Cite where in the constitution the American government has the authority to regulate healthcare in the U.S.A.?

  7. dobropet says:

    “You are so funny you know that??? The sad story is you Americans did those plantations first. -kostantinos”

    Where did you get that information?

  8. ed says:

    It’s both amusing and saddening how misinformed these people are. A shame, because a lot of them would stand to benefit from health care reform.

  9. dobropet says:

    I disagree ed, to benefit from healthcare AT the expensive of another is not a benefit for all.

    “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” -Adrian Rodgers

  10. Susan says:

    Snoo—where do even begin to believe that the stimulus package has done any good what so ever? Do you realize how many more people are unemployed now? Taking money that does not exist is not going to recover our economic woes. It is play money. Hell even China is begging him to stop what he is doing. I know he hasn’t been president long, but from the moment he stepped on the scene he has done nothing but create more problems. His plan is not going to help America, but it is going to ensure he gets his socialized one payer system because everyone will be without work so he can indeed take over. What does that do to the American people? It makes us all slaves to the govt.

    Here is a great definition of Free World by Wikipedia: The free world is a Cold War-era term often applied to or used by non-communist nations to describe themselves. The term was used to contrast the greater personal freedom enjoyed by citizens of non-communist countries that were democratic, such as the United States.

  11. Susan says:

    Jimmy says: Aren’t we supposed to be a free and equitable country?

    Free yes, equitable NO. The American dream is supposed to be that everybody has the right to attempt to attain wealth and prosperity. It is not just given. It isn’t a right to have what people work hard for to all even lazy people. You, Jimmy, have the right to work hard and get a college education that you pay back if you don’t get a scholarship, in order to go out into the “free” world and apply for a job along with tons of other people where you compete for that position and hopefully get it so you can attain the wealth that you want. Then, if you so decide, you can donate to charities that give to less fortunate that truy need your help instead of the lazy that pump out babies for a welfare check so they can sit on their arse and take from those that work hard. This would not be a free country if it was equally divided out amongst us based on the FEW that work hard to make their living so you can have a free and equitable country. Those countries already exist so Jimmy, move to one if that is what you desire. Stop trying to alter this country into something we don’t recognize as free anymore.

  12. Susan says:

    Snoo—-the reason it matters where he was born is the fact that if he isn’t a nationalized citizen, he can’t be President of the FREE WORLD. It does matter. It is the LAW. Sorry that does count for something in America.

    And again on racism….nothing I have said even hints to my being racist. You don’t know me, I could be black for all you know. You should be careful saying people are racist for disagreeing with Obama. I can make an educated argument based on what he has already done to this country he claims to love. If you were truly as smart as you like to say, you wouldn’t have discussed this stimulus package as though it were the correct thing to do. It is going to ensure our failed economy so great grandchildren are still paying for it. You seriously think you understand economics? That is hilarious.

  13. dobropet says:

    Obama is only continuing the failed policies of Bush, and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics their data indicates that all of the states that voted for Obama are feeling the worst unemployment rates than those that voted against Obama.

  14. PopTart says:

    “Snoo—-the reason it matters where he was born is the fact that if he isn’t a nationalized citizen, he can’t be President of the FREE WORLD. It does matter. It is the LAW. Sorry that does count for something in America.”

    Dearest Susan,

    A few comments regarding your reply to Snoo.

    Obama isn’t a nationalized citizen, he is a natural born citizen. I’m not really sure what a nationalized citizen is. I do believe that you meant naturalized citizen. If you had bothered to check your facts before pecking out your reply to Snoo you would have realized that naturalized citizens are not able to become President. Also, I would like to point out that President Obama is, like his predecessors, the President of the United States not the President of the FREE WORLD.

    You are right about one thing; the law does count for something in America. Unfortunately, your understanding of the laws of this country leave much to be desired. To help you on your quest to better understanding of the laws of this country I have included two links below.

    Kindest Regards, PopTart

  15. Bubba says:

    I think the whole Obama born in Africa is completely asinine, though I do believe Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990.

    Now, has Obama helped the economy? In the short term, maybe. In the long term maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I think Bush was one of the worst presidents we ever had. But Obama is falling into the same mentality that has been bringing down or economy for decades. You can’t control the boom/bust if the market. It happens. Bush tried to push the economy. Housing was booming, they pushed it more. It all had to collapse. It was unsustainable.

    Now Obama is postponing the inevitable. You can’t blame him. People like “Susan” expect a president to fix the economy in less than a year. Even though she says she is against the spending, I seriously doubt she would be comfortable with a deep seated recession, which is what we should be going through. Bush put us in a very bad situation. We are going to have to feel the pain, either today or tomorrow.

  16. Bubba says:

    Excuse the spelling. i hate typing on a netbook.

  17. dobropet says:

    I think what the complaint is that the policies first administered by Bush (Paulson, Bernanke) will continue under Obama, yet with all of the efforts being brought forward it will only excaerbate the crisis and create an even bigger recession than was to be expected this past year.

    The funds supporting these bailouts are coming from the taxpayer, there’s no way around it. The Federal Reserve is a private institution, so when the government claims they can take money from the fed all that is really being said is that the fed is giving congress a loan, which in turn will be paid off (back to the fed) through future subsidies of the American people via taxes. This does not include the interest rate that the federal reserve sets itself.

  18. Mark says:

    Do you even know what a “nationalized citizen” is? I’ve never actually heard of that, but I HAVE heard of “natural born” and “naturalized” citizens. Obama is a natural born citizen of the US regardless of where he was born. Since his mom was a US citizen at the time of his birth, he was born with automatic US citizenship making him a natural born citizen. I know this for a fact because my son was born in Japan (his mother is Japanese) and he is still considered a natural born citizen because I have citizenship.

    Naturalized citizens are different. Those are people who were originally NOT US citizens who APPLIED for citizenship. I never applied for citizenship for my son; all I did was tell the US government that he was born overseas and they sent me a certificate of birth abroad and a social security card and a US passport. So, regardless of where Obama was born, he is a natural born citizen. I do not understand why this is such an issue.

  19. dobropet says:

    Although I’d gather to say most people wouldn’t believe anything birthers have to articulate on the subject the best way to discourage such derision to their movement is to classify the standards for being POTUS using the constitutional requirements and comparing them with the laws regarding B.O.s citizenship.

    Say maybe, a lawyer? Enter Mario Apuzzo, Esq.-

  20. Susan says:

    Mark—where you in the military when all this happened? If you were, that is different. The child is considered a citizen if you were military.

  21. Mark says:

    No, I am not in the military. The child is considered a citizen if one parent is a US citizen. Really. Look it up. All the parents have to do is go to the consulate with a translated copy of the birth certificate.

  22. dobropet says:

    To be POTUS this is the requirement people:

    “Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.” -by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  23. dobropet says:

    Besides, what’s at question here is B.O.s eligibilty not yours-

    “It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying “born” in the original). Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this. -by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”

    So the question remains, is he a natural born citizen, or a citizen?

  24. James says:

    I Like Susan. Too many nit-pickey people on here. I could really care less that Obama is Black. I don’t like Liberals. I work to hard for my money to turn around and “have” to give it to ANYBODY. I give to my family and to other people that I feel deserve “my” hard earned cash. The Government “does not” know how to spend my money better than I do.

  25. Pam says:

    Susan – I would debate any point with you, but truly believe we would only accomplish one thing, which is to “agree to disagree”. However, I think people have conveniently forgotten that Bush’s administration spent trillions of American dollars in a war that left foreign countries worse off than we went there and NO he never accomplished what he was supposed to do. In addition, for the last fifteen years mortgage brokers and lenders have been pushing loans onto ignorant consumers without sufficient regulations and why were American car makers being closed minded about their fragile future. All of these things have been the demise of our economic stability and ALL of it happened before president Obama ever stepped into office. Bush was praised while he frivolously spent money we didn’t have during the course of eight years! Yet, you expect president Obama to turn things around in less than a year? I also wonder if would you be saying the same thing if it was McCain saying we need a health reform or a bailout? Because many presidents talked about the health system that is falling apart. My husband have struggled for the last 15 years trying to keep our business going, while we get hit with higher insurance rates, higher taxes, higher gas prices. While I don’t want to pay for some lazy ass sitting in his living room waiting for a job or an insurance policy to land on his lap, there are people in America that desperately need help. However, I also wonder what you would do if YOU could not afford your insurance or worse not be able to get insurance at all. Would you say that we don’t need a health reform? I for one would just like to see America get back on its feet again. Whether it’s Mr. Obama that accomplishes this enormous task or a future president. We as a nation need to stand together and think of our kids’ future.

  26. Susan says:

    Pam, I 100% agree that Bush SUCKED!! He was not a conservative at all. I have said on here, that I don’t like Bush. So, to bring him up is pointless because I am not one of the blind conservative followers that so many liberals are. As for McCain ugh. I did vote for him but only because I knew Obama was much worse. None of us knew a thing about Obama except that he had extremely shady connections and now look at what he is bringing to the white house. Thank God Acorn has fallen, of course they will just recreate themselves under a new title, but at least awareness has occured. And we can’t forget Van Jones. What a wonderful man to be associated with, by the way, he is a declared Marxist, and Obama had him as a Czar!!!!!!! And again, the conservative voice got him ousted too.

    It was actually Bush and McCain, even though I can’t stand either of them, that came to Congress to warn about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae going insane with housing to those that can’t afford it. So it is unforunate that you feel you have to bring that up. So 15 years of housing crisis, you do reaize that Slick Willy was in for 8 of those, in which he didn’t warn, and Bush started warning in 2001, wow when he got in the white house, till 2006 with McCain’s help. Do you really believe what you say?

    As for leaving countries worse off, I don’t declare to know for certain how these people feel about what has occurred, but I know from some news clips that they seemed pretty happy to be allowed to actually vote and go to school, especially women, without as much fear as they had previously. I also know from some military folks, that they were thanked often for being there and helping to free them from an oppressive regime. The residents would actually run out and crowd our military wanting to shake their hands and hug them for what they were doing in their oh so worse off country due to our military. I don’t know how I feel regarding why we are still there. Our military has done what they can and this is a war that will never end. It is in the Bible that Muslims will always fight and want death, so maybe it is time for our military to come home and stop risking their lives, but I know that more than not, our military wanted to be there in the beginning because they believed in what they were doing.

    Bush was NOT praised for over spending at all. You must just listen to biased media because conservatives were not impressed with his spending sprees. He was a liberal with all that spending. I sure didn’t hear everyday liberals complain about tax refund checks they received in the mail from Bush. Where is the money that Obama said he would send citizens of the USA? LOL. I guess people will still have to put money in their own cars and pay their own mortgages since Obama doesn’t seem to be very giving with our tax money. I do not expect him to be able to fix things in less than a year, but to ensure it gets worse is not acceptable. Do you understand that this stimulus package he got will only ensure you and your husband and probably myself and my husband are screwed for the rest of our lives and as for your children, hell, let’s talk about your great, great, great grand kids, and then some and how screwed they are. The American Dream is a pipe dream now, thank you Obama voters.

    I do think Healthcare reform needs to happen, but govt controlled healthcare, NO. Why can’t liberals understand that govt occludes any true growth and development? What has the govt done that has truly succeeded? Why would you want them controlling your right to healthcare? Do you understand that they will not take the system they set up for us? They might say they will in a few years, but I promise you that is a lie. They won’t give up their good healthcare for something they know will fail.

    Don’t worry, I am sure I am not far behind you with struggling because socialism doesn’t allow anyone to survive. So, if you only voted to ensure the rich get knocked down a peg, congrats, you succeeded, but the joke is on you, because now, no one has a chance in hell of succeeding. Welcome to 1984. Big Brother is watching you.

  27. Susan says:

    One more thing Pam… always puts a smile on my face when Democrats complain about taxes. Your party is the tax party. You don’t like taxes, stop voting for them.

  28. ed says:

    At the expense of who exactly? The insurance companies? Everyone deserves to have access to a competitively priced insurance plan. I don’t think you realize how many of us there are out there without health insurance.

  29. ed says:

    And not just without health insurance, but people with health insurance that get f**ked anyway because their insurance won’t cover their illness.

  30. web says:

    Socialist, Nazi, Muslim, Anti-Christ, Non-Christian, Hitler, Baby Killer? Well, those are a lot of unflattering nouns, but where is the racism? I think shes referring to his belief system more than anything.

  31. David says:

    While this expose might persuade me to think all those folks that marched on Washington DC are hillbilly rednecks, I can’t help but observe that 50% of the film is dominated by a dozen or so individuals offering uninformed opinions. I wonder, of the thousands that attended, was the interviewer so strapped for time that he couldn’t broach even one hundred demonstrators?

    In any mass of political demonstrators–left, right or center–there will be members of the fringe, uneducated zealots and those who are the worst kind of representatives for a political party, movement, philosophy, etc.

    What’s more entertaining to me is that I, and most any reasonably informed and educated conservative, had an immediate answer for every questions the interviewer posited, smug as his attitude was. Also, much of this expose was dedicated to highlighting those ‘dumb rednecks’ that don’t know the history of czars in the American political system, the details of the healthcare bill, etc. Never mind the fact that their objections to the czar appointments and healthcare bill are well-founded without a complete understanding of the issues. Does one need to be an expert in World War II history to understand the holocaust was wrong? No. Of course this example is meant purely as an example and I mean no hyperbole by suggesting the current state of affairs in America are similar to such a tragedy, but understand the strawman tactic used by this expose (and others like it from conservative activists) are flimsy.

    Why do I and many others oppose the czars? They are largely unaccountable and ambiguous positions that, despite the claims of the interviewer, do have legislative impact as their recommendations are used as justifications for legislative action by Congress and the President. Additionally, czar positions are the first step to ballooned bureaucracies that, in the end, costs taxpayers money are are largely ineffective, more motivated by their own survival than accomplishing the goals for which they were created.

    And healthcare? Folks are rightly concerned that the bill currently in Congress has been hurried, has not been adequately reviewed by our elected representatives and has not been fairly explained to the public. For instance, is there or instant there a public option? Does the bill provide for healthcare to illegal aliens? What are the exact provisions for end of life care? The President has not been able to provide a straight answer to the questions (saying one thing in front of Congress only to have the Whitehouse issue a ‘clarification’ that contradicts his statements the following day) so why should we, as citizens, embrace this legislation? And, I know this final objection has been recited time and time again, but the government is inefficient and wasteful. See Medicaid, Social Security, the Post Office (which the President himself likes to make jokes about). Each of these services has been unsustainable without ever-increasing tax burdens on the public. Why should we believe that nationalizing healthcare would be any different?

    Well, rant is over. Good night and good luck.

    Once again,

  32. ed says:

    Here is your “Whitehouse clarification.”:

    It states that the public option–using the exchange program–would require identification. What it won’t do is reduce anything that is already available to them. Where are you getting this contradiction from?

  33. Pam says:

    Susan – Funny you should mention Acorn, I guess you forgot about the recount scandal when Bush was elected. I won’t defend the Democrats because I don’t believe that taxing people to death works or that giving the house away to the lazy is good for the nation. As far as Republicans go, history shows that during the course a Republican presidency the country’s economy is always in turmoil. If you don’t believe me do the research. I am not a Democrat or Republican, but I do believe in being open-minded. I can’t say with certainty that the health reform is the solution and if it’s run like all of the other govern-ran programs, then probably not. I bid you fare well and good luck, as we all will need it.

  34. dobropet says:

    @ ed

    First, I don’t believe that healthcare is a right, but by stating this I don’t believe it should be denied to anyone because of either pre-exising or other conditions that warrant clarification by any insurance agency. The existing laws now DO NOT allow insurance agencies to compete across state lines not to mention there are numerous inaccuracies being stated about healthcare: article by-Don Cooper [send him mail] is a Florida native, Navy veteran and economist living and working in the Midwest.

    :And some people don’t need healthcare or don’t want it, you support a system that would infringe upon people’s right to NOT have insurance and suffer penalization by the government for their right to say no? That is not liberty, that is tyranny:

    :The only reason there are disparities within this flawed system isn’t the insurance companies themselves, it’s the level of government encroachment into the private sector causing problems in healthcare availablitiy not capitalism (as I gather you are illustrating here):

    And I don’t believe you realize or have done enough research to justify your claims, once again denied coverage for a pre-existing condition.

  35. David says:


    Exactly my point, ed. You supplied the source article and everything. Obama claimed that those who claim illegal immigrants would be covered were liars. They would not be covered. The next day, the Whitehouse has to specifically highlight that without amending the current legislation before Congress, there would be no requirement to provide proof of citizenship before enrolling in the publicly funded healthcare program. So basically, illegals weren’t going to be covered, but there would be no way to determine if an applicant was indeed a citizen. Hence the initial complaints from Republicans.

    Thus, the President appears to be unfamiliar with the provisions of the healthcare bill. My original point is repeated: why should folks be supportive of a bill that our representatives don’t seem to understand?

  36. Sad… so many of these people have NO UNDERSTANDING of the issues they raise. They’re angered and motivated by the lies and distortions coming from divisive pundits and fake cable news channels.

  37. dobropet says:

    Yes, I agree. Though mostly neo-con agendas are prevalent within those areas but not to the point it is only the right, the left has some as well.

  38. Hannah says:

    dobropet. Australia (where I come from) has had a universal health care system for many decades now. A recent global study has recently assessed that Australia has the best value for money health care of any developed country. I understand our health care costs per capita are about half of those in America. Moreover, people live on average 4 years longer in Australia than America and our infant mortality easily outshines America. Yet its all regulated by government. Do you really think we should swap our system for the American private sector model? I don’t think so.

  39. Hannah says:

    Dobropet. I think it is a very lame, even dogmatically desperate, argument to attempt to blame the poor outcomes of the American health care system (whether you consider by cost per capita, by overall health outcomes or by coverage) entirely on government regulation of health care. I have no doubt there are anomalies (as there are in any regulatory or private sector domains you care to name) but the sheer scale of the failures in the American health care system compared to those in the majority of developed countries IMHO defies any account that implies that America could surpass what has been achieved elsewhere if only it would implement a more purist economic liberal model.

    I can only make sense of your viewpoint if I take into account your comment that you don’t think American citizens should expect to have health care as a basic right. If I couple that level of care about the well-being of fellow citizens with a Chicago School style economic liberalism that encourages naturalising analogies between market competition and evolutionary survival of the fittest stories (however simplistic) – then IMHO I see many correlations with 1930s style evolutionary racism. Let the unfit die or, better still, lets help them die. Now who was it that implemented that view so effectively…? Just shows that whether you’re a socialist or a neoliberal, what really matters is whether you give a damn about other people whether they are economically ‘productive’ or not.

  40. dobropet says:

    Nobody is concerned with your government run healthcare Hannah, this is America, not Australia.

    And if in any way you got liberal out of my opinions check your math over again. I am against any government intrustion into the private sector. Any type of regulation, whether directly or indirectly, is purely a negative effect upon ANY freemarket.

    And your equating of 1930s style evolutionary racism with anything I’ve stated is completely beyond your comprehension. Show me the info containing any of your beliefs or data consisting of all that you’ve stated here and I’ll gladly debate you with logic and reason.

    What recent global study do you speak of? What factors were included, excluded? Have you taken into account that the FDA, along with the AMA, and numerous other organizations suppress information of alternative methods of treatment to help cure the sick? Do you really think doctors given their profession give their patients ALL of the available information regarding their illness and that there are differing methods of treatment (save for second opinions)? Do you not realize insurance agencies are not allowed to compete across state lines here in America? Have you looked into the amounts of donations, from corporations, given to various representatives, senators, officials and the like for legislation that would benefit specific corporations?

    The statistics don’t include those who seek altenative methods of treatment Hannah. Such as H2O2 for cancer treatment, which is more effective, and safer than any other treatment on earth. What of natural methods and those used by Native Americans for hundreds of years? What about any indigenous people that use alternatives than those used here in American hospitals? You cannot attribute the health of the people to their government when intervention is the status quo. You take away the rights of the individual to say no. Whether it’s the patient wanting a second opinion, the doctor refusing to give service to an individual, a nurse voluntarily giving treatment outside of their professional work area, there are too many to list.

    And I do blame govenment no matter how much you disagree, it is the only stigmata within our healthcare system that seems to go unnoticed.

    “Government is essentially the negation of liberty.” – Ludwig Von Mises

  41. dobropet says:

    @ Pam

    No, nobody forgot about the recount for Bush, it wasn’t all that simplistic either:

    :people such as Karl Rove should be indicted for conspiracy to commit murder, and the other Bushites should be tried for treason:

    :but that leaves no room for further dicrepancies to be allowed passage and acceptance without knowledge of the facts.

  42. PJBurke says:


    Do you really belief in this myth of a “free market?”

    Try having any kind of system of exchange without courts to enforce contracts.

    The very possibility of markets are created by society, as expressed though the mechanism of government. Without government, there is no market. The entire “free market” mythology is an argument for a tilted playing field, where the stronger always “do down” the weaker… and little by little they systematically pillage and loot the entire society.

  43. multifunction says:

    On the subject of the myth of a “free market”:

  44. dobropet says:

    Painfully, none of you know what a freemarket is:

    :if you do not look for the evidence in the justification of the freemarket and it’s potential to create a more profitable economy, then there’s no question your lack of evidence upon the subject will dismiss it as folly:

    :and there IS NO evidence that government is tantamount with freemarket principals PJ. I’d like to see this evidence, if such a thing exists. So you suggest that when traders here in America started using animal furs to exchange for other goods and services, government was the factor in the productivity of those workers? What about the Native American tribes who traded with other tribes, their systems were based on government intervention?

    And, I could careless what Dean Baker has to say about freemarket principals, his analysis only serves to blind and confuse those who have no direction within the economic realm:

    :Trying to enforce contracts? Clearly this does not have any positive effect on ANY market anywhere. Governments should not be in the business of enforcing, granting, or endorsing contracts. Their purpose should be to protect the people from the tyranny of corporatism, not catering to those who would undermine the liberty of a people. Granting monopoly is one such act, railroads immediately come to mind. No, our government was based upon the freemarket principals that the founders had sought to acheive, not with the regulatory bodies that are so numerous today which destroy the people’s ability to live freely in such a market:

    “The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority” -Mises, Human Action

  45. mmauer says:



    It’s yahoos like you with your ridiculous statements about the government and how incapable it is that make me sick to my stomach. The government provides many services to all of its citizens. We would be happy to drop a few dead weights like you and let you fend for yourself for a while.

    It would be so much fun to see you crawl back on your bloody knees begging for the assistance of the government you love to hate.

  46. Moonpie says:

    People are frustrated about their lives, their lost dreams, and the world around them that seems to have gone crazy. So they vent about the government, the constitution and the economy as if they understand what they are talking about. There are some things we will never fully understand. There are good things and there are bad things about the U.S. and the government. We are told that we can save the economy by consuming more. The U.S. is the largest consumer in the world, and the population has doubled since 1960. The largest source of income for the government is the payroll tax. The rest is borrowed money. That said, isn’t it about time that the people of this country get the benefit of their own tax dollars instead of sending the money overseas or bailing out Wall Street? I would think people would demand more health care, social security, education, roads and bridges, local projects, federal grants, etc., instead of calling for more cuts to domestic spending and social programs. How crazy is that? We are the working people, and we should directly benefit from our government. People are dumb enough to listen to crooks and liars telling them to cut off their own nose to save their face? If Glenn Beck told you to jump off a cliff en masse with all the other tea partiers, would you do it? Stop listening to entertainers like Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, and start watching the news, reading the newspaper, even watching BBC and reading other sources. That is, if you’re really interested and you don’t just want to vent and sound smart. I suspect that’s all your after, love. True, there isn’t much to go around these days. Well, XXOOXXOO.

Leave a Reply

Article Tools:  Print   Email
Copyright © 2008 The Public Record. All rights reserved. Branding services provided by Quantcast