(Below is a post of mine today on my Facebook account upon reading of Detroit being declared legally eligible to file for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy. The first reply I made has quite a bit of profanity in it, and I do apologize for that since I was expressing my disdain for a lady to whom it was referring from back during the summer. The two gentlemen who replied are originally or still reside in London, UK, and one, Phil, is a member of the Conservative Party, while Steve, who now resides in Ohio, is a very liberal Democrat. Read the lies and the fallacies below which Steve tries to feed to Phil, who does not know enough about our system of government to know that Steve is misleading him due to either his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, or his complicity along with the rest of the Left in failing to acknowledge that sacred document as the supreme law of the land.)
President Barack Obama said that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."
Well, I think that if Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit!
I suppose then that since Detroit is now legally the largest city in U.S. history eligible to file Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, there will undoubtedly be a bailout looming in Washington which will add further to the national debt, which in turn is laid upon the already-burdened taxpayers of this and future generations to come. I am sure future subsidies for the citizens of Detroit in the form of more and larger welfare checks are to come as well.
Because after all, does Obama not want to be able to say that Detroit is his city?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/03/judge-declares-detroit-eligible-for-chapter-9-bankruptcy/
![]()
- Heather Davis and Phil Matthews like this.
Jonathan Henderson It's a damn good thing Sheila is no longer able to see these since I blocked her back in the summer when she started the incessant playing of the race card upon the verdict being rendered during the George Zimmerman Trial. She began posting shit about having all of her friends, mostly within the black community, sign a petition that was set up online by the NAACP to have him brought to trial on civil rights charges. I ignored these because I knew that despite her classifying herself as a "conservative Republican," she always loved to play up the race card and talk about how evil white people are. But when she started the insane shit about Detroit and accusing people who pointed the finger at government officials for the city's failures economically as being tantamount at our wanting to see these officials "fail," I simply replied to her my feelings on the matter, which asserted those beliefs which she so detested since that was my goal to anger her. She then accused me of being "part of the problem" and then told me that if I don't agree with her on an issue, that I should simply not post a reply on her page. Well, why should I not post a reply if I disagree with her when she was always one of the first people on my Facebook list of friends to do so with me and never minced words in how brutal she would be in her criticisms? At that point, I laid into her with a profanity-laced tirade, accusing her of race-baiting and of being racist towards all those who were not classified as "African-Americans." I then told her that if the citizens of Detroit would have paid attention to who was running the show and what policies were being implemented, this all might have been avoided. It went on, and I finally said my peace in one last declarative statement by stating to her that if she cannot handle the heat of an argument that she started, she should get the hell out of the kitchen, that when I no longer was willing to argue over political or social issues, I simply stopped posting a ton of stuff pertaining to those types of topics. I called her a "hypocrite" and then got offline. She never replied to me so far as I know, and did not block me. I blocked her. I was tired of putting up with her shit.9 hours ago · Edited · Like
Phil Matthews I feel sorry for you over there. I called Obama for what he was before he got elected first time round. He's the U.S.'s Tony Blair. A snake oil salesman. He talks a great game, full of crowd pleasing comments and political style but when it comes to substance or actually doing anything he's been found wanting. What's "changed" so much? He's been given a mandate with two election victories to really go after... well, seeing how he never really put his finger on what he was going after it's hard to know, but he puts out great soundbites and ultimately doesn't appear to have made much progress on any of the major issues. Just like a certain ex-Prime Minister of the U.K.... And like him I'm sure he'll have profited well from it too...9 hours ago · Like- Phil Matthews I should say I'm not being wise after the event. It's just that T.B. pulled that same stunt on the U.K. electorate before BHO did it over there and they fell for it here too.9 hours ago ·Like
Steve High Nothing gets done on major issues due to the House of Representatives refusal to do anything that doesn't reward their corporate masters.9 hours ago · Like- Phil Matthews Sorry to show my ignorance of the system here Steve but who sits in the HoR? (Presumably the Senators sit in the Senate but is that different to the HoR?)9 hours ago · Like
- Steve High the House consists of members elected from districts in each state for 2 year terms vs. 6 yrs. for the Senate,. the more populous the state the more reps9 hours ago · Like · 1
- Phil Matthews Ah. I never knew that. I can see how it'd work in 1776 with fewer states but that must get messy these days
9 hours ago · Like - Steve High It's a mess with the Jerry-mandering of districts in certain states to make sure a certain party carries that district to try and ensure a majority in the House8 hours ago · Like · 1
- Phil Matthews Sounds like time the HoR was consigned to history like the House of Lords here. It had its purpose in the past but now? Well, a Senator is elected to represent a State. Why the need for the HoR? (Forgive my ignorance again, sorry).8 hours ago · Like
- Steve High In theory a Rep will have their finger on the pulse of the needs of the people in their district whereas there are only 2 senators from each state. California for example has over 40 Reps. maybe even 50.8 hours ago · Edited · "Like · 1
- Jonathan Henderson So Steve, I take that you are asserting that the House of Representatives alone controls the ebb and flow of the government but not the White House nor the Senate, which are controlled by Democrats? You failed to tell Phil about how nearly all of the large states except for Texas, Florida, and Ohio, as well as practically all of the major metropolitan areas, are paid for and owned by Democratic Party-run Machtpolitik organizations all too often at the polls! I do think you are missing far more here than you are willing to admit through your limited knowledge of our Constitution which is being ignored and trampled upon by Obama as well. If you are claiming that corporations alone are controlling our nation via our House of Representatives and that this is the lone governing apparatus in Washington, what, pray tell, are our president and the Democratic-controlled Senate with a large majority in power (55-45 currently) doing with their time on the taxpayer's watch? Do they not hold part of the responsibility of the laws which are passed in this country? Furthermore, how do you explain the policies which are being implemented even though this is what the media loves to refer to as the modern "do-nothing Congress"? Are you going to tell me that Obama has nothing to do with the fact that there are now legal initiatives based upon his executive orders to curtail the legal purchase and ownership of firearms? And what about what we are seeing regarding his handling of the Middle East foreign policy, how nearly 60 years worth of diplomatic relations with Israel have now been destroyed under the Obama administration's policies in order to serve his interests in the Islamic world for reasons some believe involve his actually clandestinely practicing the religion and collaborating with such parties as the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups in a potential plot to enact their will of the new Caliphate upon our world? And once more, how can you state with a straight face that corporate interests are only acknowledged by those within the Republican Party when Apple Inc.; Berkshire Hathaway, the large investment firm out of Omaha, Nebraska, which is controlled by Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the world; Microsoft, which Bill Gates, who is the wealthiest man in the world, controls and often is found supporting the Democratic Party; the vast majority of the major news media outlets outside of Fox and a handful of political radio talk shows such as Oprah Winfrey and George Soros; Facebook, which is owned by a renowned member of the American Left in the young billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, who has family members running for Congress as Democrats; and let us not forget Hollywood, whose wealthy actors, actresses, and studio executives are so influential amid their extreme left-wing socialist views that through their art form and attraction from this which they have over the masses is so strong that now President Obama is calling upon these individuals to assist him in the gun control debate? Are these industries not controlled by a large wealthy elite? And how can you sit there and not acknowledge the truth that in fact, there are more millionaires and billionaires in general which are members of the Democratic Party than those within the GOP? Your contention that the sole fault of class warfare resides within the GOP is more than simply disingenuous and misleading, riddled with more holes than Swiss cheese, and grossly fallacious; and furthermore, the wealthy will always control the Democratic Party even more than the GOP because it is very simple to campaign for public office for a candidate or themselves by promising a house with a two-car garage and 2.5 kids to every person who votes for them. When you promise handouts, people will buy into your ideas despite what will invariably be demanded of them to forfeit in terms of their legal rights and liberties as guaranteed within the parameters of natural law. The left-wing socialists' false promises of how they will ensure that the meek shall inherit the earth never comes to fruition, but rather adds to their power base and mandate due to their perpetuating despair and social discontent through their initiatives of spreading false hopes.
When it comes to the issue of corporations controlling the federal government due to the House of Representatives alone being controlled by the Republican Party, your argument simply does not support what facts are present amid your slew of logical fallacies. The federal government, for all its flaws, is still a checks-and-balances system of apparati, and yet the Left continues to blame every last minutia of Obamacare's failures on the GOP simply because they "do not support it publicly." If your position is for government to control virtually all industries in America as a monopoly, you are hearkening upon the failed policies of your homeland's Labour Party prior to the Thatcher premiership, which led to the infamous "Winter of Discontent of 1978/79" that placed the icing on the cake of what became attributed to the United Kingdom as being "the sick man of Europe"; and Thatcher's initiatives of privatization and deregulation and essentially castrating the capacity of the labor unions that were so prominent and powerful in Northern England and Scotland in the government-controlled coal mines which dominated practically every facet of the British socialist economies of scale that it took more than five years to bear fruit since Britain's economy was mired in one of the worst recessions in post-depression era Western civilization, which included a spike in the number of unemployed from 1.5 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1983, followed by a dramatic decrease in unemployment, the rise in wealth for all levels of income as well as private ownership of the means of production while the rate of inflation dropped by more than half from 23% in 1979 to about 10% in 1990, when she was deposed by her own party due to her unfortunate choice to implement the Community Charge in 1989, and what in my mind was a wise decision that we are seeing she was very much correct in asserting herself in regarding not joining a federalized Europe, the precursor to the European Union, and avoiding a unified continental currency which is now failing. Thatcher was responsible for Britain's great economic miracle of the 1980's because she encouraged private ownership and entrepreneurship as opposed to a massive state-run economies of scale; and she, along with Ronald Reagan, proved to the world why Keynesian economics failed and the principles espoused by Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises are now the most prominent economic policies on Earth. Ultimately, if there are any socio-political entities we should fear of attaining a "new world order," it should be socialists and other varieties of left-wing extremists who seek to unify all the nations of the world under one class of people, none rich despite working to provide for their families since the fruits of their labors are paid almost entirely into the government, and all are poor in comparison to a small oligarchy of those who control every aspect of their lives. This is the theory of Marxism ushering in a democracy based upon the dictatorship of the proletariat whereby a centralized governing apparatus alone governs while the rest of the workers are subjugated to the wealthy governing oligarchs' whims. It bears mentioning that all major Marxist revolutions which have ever been successfully conducted were done so in nations which were agricultural in their major economic systems of operations, while never once occurring in a capitalist, free-market economy, as Marx stated would be impossible in 1873. If class warfare to you should entail that to be poor is a virtue if all are equal in income under a ruling apparatus of wealthy oligarchs, I dare say that such individuals with this like mindset as yours are among the most dangerous alive.23 minutes ago · Edited · - Jonathan Henderson If it becomes a matter of who controls the means of production, Steve, who would you prefer to have the power: the members within the private sector who can be sued and forced to address their unfair business practices if they should wrong their customers or employers amid the principles of a free-market economies of scale? Or should we allow the federal government to control every industry, whereupon if the people disagree with the policies of their own government in operating their businesses and controlling the prices and wages amid the phenomena of inflation that would become a major issue, they have no say as to what and how the situation would be addressed for fear of facing dire consequences? The onus is on you to address these issues with evidence that socialism has worked well in the past; is working well today when the more any government continues to subsidize the poor within the inner cities and rural areas rather than promoting initiatives friendly to the plight of the ownership of small businesses, poverty continues to flourish in these areas, and the lone source of racism for many of these individuals of minority races and ethnicities continues to be blamed upon right-wing conservatives and libertarians when in reality, they are being rendered redundant and dependent upon the government for every aspect of their survival; and that based upon these precedents, if you can prove that any meaningful effort at implementing a socialist state in terms of universal equity without the governing apparatus becoming too powerful is even possible. If government is to play any role in the health and viability of a nation's economy, it should be by putting people to work in jobs within the private sector which pay reasonably well and cutting the number of people who rely upon welfare and food stamps for their survival, not by adding to the list to where we now are seeing a record of 46 million Americans on some form of government welfare plan; and furthermore, government regulatory bureaucracies and other forms of public expenditure programs need to be both privatized and deregulated so that we stifle all abilities of the government to impede upon the lives of those who are willing to be innovative and create jobs with substantial pay wages. If the American people are being kept poor, it is because of our government and those politicians such as Obama, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi who seek to maintain the ever-growing portion of the nation in poverty as the status quo as their source of political legitimacy by being the hands which feed or destroy them. The height of the modern Democratic Party's existence will always be during the 12 year Reign of Terror of Franklin Roosevelt when the specter of soup and bread lines resonated in photographs within the pages of the major national newspapers and magazine articles and only grew in number and severity under FDR, not lessened until he drew the U.S. into World War II, at which time he created what the Soviet Union once referred to as a state-operated economy based upon "war communism." Considering that the Democratic Party blamed a Republican president in Herbert Hoover based upon his policies of expanding government's role in the economy through what were progressive political measures (this was the platform upon which FDR ran in 1932) for what became known as the Great Depression and then FDR, upon winning the 1932 election, far exceeded what Hoover ever did in creating the modern socialist and welfare state in America, any means by which your party or those around the world may utilize for the purposes of political expediency to gain power by frightening the people into electing them will be sought as a source for acruing power. A scared people is the Left's best friend in terms of the acquisition of power.
You should discuss what the British government's policy of public ownership of major corporations such as Jaguar, Rover, British Airways, Rolls-Royce, etc., did for that economy with Phil. I am sure with his greater knowledge of British history than that of my own, he can describe in glowing detail how well socialism worked in his country.
