The Quiet Coup...

[Bar Sinister]

Okay'

Here is what I found in her articles.........first of all, CDN Bear is completely correct in his assertion that Klein absolutely misrepresented the facts of the Tianamen Square incident.....the attack was not "Shock" to further the cause of world capitalism, far from it.....it was an attempt by the Communist gov't to keep complete and absolute control of Chinese development.....the free marketers were on the point of the bayonet, not behind it.

So, I go to her website and start reading articles.

let's see..."Apartheit" Israel "occupies" both the West Bank and Gaza........

Israel commited "war crimes" in its defensive attacks on the Gaza Strip......

Yep......an idiot. An especially disingenuous individual considering she is Jewish......errors in fact,,,well, just one question....if Gaza is "occupied", why did Israel find it necessay to "invade" in December 2008???

Every single propaganda lump of BS provided by the left against Israel coughed up verbatim.

On to Global Warming......

Once again, not a single, solitary thought that threatens to break out of the radical leftist box..........mankind is solely responsible for climate change, and we must be punished.....especially the wicked West, who must now be punished by shipping boatloads of cash to China...

Michael Moore is "America's Teacher".....I'd call the hypocritical, lying scumbag a snake-oil salesman....except that would be an insult to smake-oil salesmen everywhere....

The wonderful opportunities supplied by the proposed Coalition of the NDP, Liberals and Bloc........a chance to radically change the direction of the nation, starting with unilateral and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan........included, of course, an upraised finger to the West in general and Alberta in particular.

Praise for the masked Anarchists that violently disrupt every major summit.....the front line of major change!! Not that Ms. Klein would ever dirty her hands by stooping to manning a barricade.......but she'll be around after the revolution to instruct the peasants in how to build their Brave New World......

After a bit of study, one glaring element in Ms. Klein's make-up convinces me completely that she has all the intellectual ability of your average tape recorder....all she ever does is promote and regurgitate the most radical of the "truths" of the academics and artists of the "intellectual" left.......not once does she depart the path, not once does she show a glimmer of original thought, not once does she question the dogma.....

She is like a High Priestess........elevated above the common masses, blessed with the knowledge of Truth, to passed unquestioned on to the unenlightened....

If anything, I now like her LESS.

It is unfortunate that you think that way, Colpy. Judging from, your emotional commentary It appears you are allowing your political leanings to colour your judgment.

Prior to reading Ms. Klein's book I had wondered about certain events taking place in the world, such as the mystifying incompetence of certain right of centre governments. It was obvious that they were making a complete mess of things, but in my naivete I assumed it was simply because they were incompetent. It did not enter my mind that they might actually be destroying social infrastructure deliberately. Ms. Klein's book details such deliberate destruction of in a number of nations I had made it my business to study, including the USA and USSR, especially the latter. Ms. Klein's description of what happened in the USSR was certainly very accurate.

If you explore the policies of the Chinese government following Tiananmen Square
you will certainly notice that during an era of severe repression, radical market reforms were pushed through by the Chinese government, including the dismantling of much of the country's social infrastructure. It gave the government of China the opportunity to create the economic model that now exists in China today while at the same time maintaining complete control.

I also had the misfortune, along with every other Albertan, to experience similar policies during the so-called Klein Revolution in Alberta, in which hundreds of government agencies were closed down or sold off to private business. These were all done in the name of "reform" when if fact the primary motive was the complete privatization of the Alberta public sector. Many government owned businesses were sold off for as little as 10 cents on the dollar. The result was that much of what was once part of the public sector in Alberta is now private. Interestingly enough, for the most part there has been no improvement in the cost of these services to Albertans. In fact, as in the case of the electrical power industry, some costs have actually soared.

In short I find little in the way of errors in Ms. Klein's treatise. I am not familiar with her website. There certainly may be posts there I might not agree with, but I was not discussing errors on her website, I was discussing her book. I suspect that is one area where we may simply have to remain in disagreement.

 

[CDNBear]

:roll:...OK, now that we've established that to be a real free thinker and not filter our data intake through an ideology, means we have to accept Klein's BS verbatim. Can we get back to the topic please?

There's lots of bandwidth to be used here, if you want to start a book review club, please feel free to do so. Elsewhere.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I read an article very similar to this a few years ago, sadly I cannot recall the name of the book or the author. However, it pointed out the the main problems with the US was that it was dominated by the wealthy and that the US government was under their complete control. It also mentioned that it did not really matter what party was in power as the Republicans and Democrats were so similar as to have no true separate identity. Any attempt at creating a third party was frozen out by massive spending by the two established parties. As a result no meaningful legislation was ever likely to be passed in the US that threatened the US establishment. The interesting thing about the article was that it was written in 1950. Incredibly, during the sixty years since that date nothing seems to have changed.

 

[CDNBear]

I read an article very similar to this a few years ago, sadly I cannot recall the name of the book or the author. However, it pointed out the the main problems with the US was that it was dominated by the wealthy and that the US government was under their complete control. It also mentioned that it did not really matter what party was in power as the Republicans and Democrats were so similar as to have no true separate identity. Any attempt at creating a third party was frozen out by massive spending by the two established parties. As a result no meaningful legislation was ever likely to be passed in the US that threatened the US establishment. The interesting thing about the article was that it was written in 1950. Incredibly, during the sixty years since that date nothing seems to have changed.

I disagree, I'd go so far as to say that in the past 60 some odd years, things have changed drastically, for the worse. Between electronic voting, acts like Glass Steagal being repealed and the massive deregulation's to the finance industry, has made things so bad. That to correct them now, would be a catastrophic feat, that may lead to actual violence, with in the Continental US.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I disagree, I'd go so far as to say that in the past 60 some odd years, things have changed drastically, for the worse. Between electronic voting, acts like Glass Steagal being repealed and the massive deregulation's to the finance industry, has made things so bad. That to correct them now, would be a catastrophic feat, that may lead to actual violence, with in the Continental US.

Try reading my post again. It was a statement about the political structure of the US and nothing else. 60 years ago both the Democrats and Republicans were controlled by moneyed interests. Nothing has changed in that regard. Nor has there been any change in the fact that in the US it is almost impossible to pass any meaningful legislation. The changes you describe are all part of the way the US is governed. If it was not a plutocracy the deregulation of the US financial sector would likely not have happened. I recognize that there has been massive social and technical change in the US just as there has in the rest of the world, but I was not talking about social and political changes.

 

[CDNBear]

Try reading my post again.

Done, my opinion remains unchanged.

As Eisenhower warned, the possibility was there, the forces were in play. It was up to the people to stop it. They didn't. Hence how in the past 60 some odd years, massive changes to the Constitution, American sociopolitical structure and the, dare I say it, the very fabric of the US economy. Have made it nearly impossible to correct.

Given that Eisenhower saw it coming. I feel it safe to say, that though there were policies in play that aided the money movers. There was not the strangle hold we see now. Obviously, Dwight was not in anybody's pocket, to the extent we see to day.

You can agree, or not, that is what I see. If you disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you can shine a light on something I missed in the history of the matter.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Done, my opinion remains unchanged.

As Eisenhower warned, the possibility was there, the forces were in play. It was up to the people to stop it. They didn't. Hence how in the past 60 some odd years, massive changes to the Constitution, American sociopolitical structure and the, dare I say it, the very fabric of the US economy. Have made it nearly impossible to correct.

Given that Eisenhower saw it coming. I feel it safe to say, that though there were policies in play that aided the money movers. There was not the strangle hold we see now. Obviously, Dwight was not in anybody's pocket, to the extent we see to day.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I accept you apology.

 

[CDNBear]

Incredibly, during the sixty years since that date nothing seems to have changed.

I disagree, I'd go so far as to say that in the past 60 some odd years, things have changed drastically, for the worse.

Try reading my post again.

Done, my opinion remains unchanged.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I accept you apology.

:roll: A small suggestion. Maybe if you didn't come to your conclusions about what people say, before you read what people write. You won't run into these problems in the future.

 

[Liberalman]

If you got rid of the IMF the situation would not be so dire. Any country that mismanages their financial situation can lease out their resources to other countries, which would provide jobs to the local population and the troubled country would get a small percentage of the resource funds after it is sold and this would continue until they have a more stable economy.

 

[CDNBear]

Liberalman, can you explain how the IMF works to me?

 

[Liberalman]

Liberalman, can you explain how the IMF works to me?

According to the IMF web site http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 186 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

Noble cause but it's just not working.

IMF money is flowing to countries to buy weapons to fight wars.

It would be better for richer countries to take in poorer countries as temporary territories where the poorer country would follow the laws of the richer country and they would prosper until the poorer country becomes more economically sound then they would be independent with a permanent trade agreement with the richer country.

 

[CDNBear]

According to the IMF web site http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm

And that means what? It's a link. You have come to a conclusion, made a claim and supply a huge link to support it? How about YOU explain it to me. So I know you have an idea of what you're talking about, and take YOU seriously.

Noble cause but it's just not working.

Oddly enough, I agree.

IMF money is flowing to countries to buy weapons to fight wars.

And huge loans and aid packages supplied by Canada, don't end up in the same bank accounts? I think Seagram's and Ethiopia would disagree.

It would be better for richer countries to take in poorer countries as temporary territories where the poorer country would follow the laws of the richer country and they would prosper until the poorer country becomes more economically sound then they would be independent with a permanent trade agreement with the richer country.

:lol:

I think you need to read the whole thread and the article in the OP. Your suggestion seems to indicate you are not aware of our accusations again the US political system. Seeing as they are "richer country" they would be one the countries you would see take in a "poorer country". Give the serious allegations we have levied against the US here. Don't you think your suggestion would lead to the same, if not greater injustice and exploitation of "poorer countries"?

 

[Liberalman]

This was posted below the link
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 186 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world. which is the answer to your prevous question.

I think you need to read the whole thread and the article in the OP. Your suggestion seems to indicate you are not aware of our accusations again the US political system. Seeing as they are "richer country" they would be one the countries you would see take in a "poorer country". Give the serious allegations we have levied against the US here. Don't you think your suggestion would lead to the same, if not greater injustice and exploitation of "poorer countries"?

Don't you think your suggestion would lead to the same, if not greater injustice and exploitation of "poorer countries

As long as the poor country is learning to be better it is not exploitation

If specific rules are applied before the transition goes through.

This can be set up as the apprenticeship program where it would end in five years.

As an apprentice you are taught by doing and every year you do more and get more wages until you become a journeyman and get lots of money.

When a richer country helps a poorer country by taking it in as a temporary territory the term would be five years and every year the country would get more power back and lesser help until the term is up.

Every year the richer country would get lesser of the resources and the poor country will be able to cash in when they get back some of the resources and at the end of five years the term is up and the poor country will be able to sustain itself.

This way the poor country will have the incentive to become better.

This way is better than throwing money at the poor countries and not teach them anything.

 

[CDNBear]

This was posted below the link
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 186 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world. which is the answer to your prevous question.

Not really. That's what it claims its goals are, it does not explain how the IMF works, which was the exact question.

As long as the poor country is learning to be better it is not exploitation

If specific rules are applied before the transition goes through.

This can be set up as the apprenticeship program where it would end in five years.
Liberaldud is a complete maroon!!!
As an apprentice you are taught by doing and every year you do more and get more wages until you become a journeyman and get lots of money.

When a richer country helps a poorer country by taking it in as a temporary territory the term would be five years and every year the country would get more power back and lesser help until the term is up.

Every year the richer country would get lesser of the resources and the poor country will be able to cash in when they get back some of the resources and at the end of five years the term is up and the poor country will be able to sustain itself.

This way the poor country will have the incentive to become better.

This way is better than throwing money at the poor countries and not teach them anything.

Although I find your suggestion interesting, I think you need to familiarize yourself with certain issues at play. Again, I think you should read the article in the OP and then the thread. I think you've missed the premise.

 

[Bar Sinister]

:roll: A small suggestion. Maybe if you didn't come to your conclusions about what people say, before you read what people write. You won't run into these problems in the future.

Once again. Thanks for agreeing with me. When you finally say something i haven't already posted let me know.

 

[CDNBear]

Once again. Thanks for agreeing with me. When you finally say something i haven't already posted let me know.

:roll: