At bottom, Every president since Roosevelt has been a pawn of british royalty. This clown has run for president eight times. You’d think he’d get the message.
James, if you want any credibility, it might not hurt to cite sources that have some credibility of their own. LaRouche has zero, or maybe less than zero.
Wonder the rationale for not mentioning that detail? (Which court and what indictments) Armed with that information you’d be able to read the indictments and tell for yourself if there is any merit to its serious nature.
Guess I’ll just have to wait and see, but it just smacked of over generalization, half truth and political spin as it was presented. Fairly disgusted by the tactic when used by either party.
Very unlike you, I do not judge what is being said by who is saying it.
The situation is that a professional journalist has stated that a Federal Court has indicted a President.
One or the other is in serious trouble.
When it comes to your judgment by reputation bullshit, I couldn’t care less. They are no doubt both serious assholes, as well as anyone trying to judge them by reputation.
And here’s where you are knowingly equivocating to try to excuse your bullshit rhetoric. Even your own source for the definition you go on to cite for socialism, says the following:
It is quite explicit, it is rule by a single ruler at the top of a government. Not a ‘single minded governing structure’, which is so generic it could be applied to ANY political philosophy of state whatsoever.
And yet, the same source that utterly contradicts you on this point is your source for the following:
Is socialism the only political philosophy wherein the economy is central planned? No
Is the Fed collectively owned? No.
Is the Fed owned by a centralised government? No.
Ergo:
You are talking utter nonsense here. It’s embarrassing, particularly for someone who harps on about delusion and obfuscation. You are deluded by obfuscation. That much is obvious. And please, please, at least have the self respect not to try to argue here. You just said something irredeemably stupid, accept it and move on. Even your own sources are proving you wrong. When that happens, and someone spots it, it’s probably time to be quiet and think a bit harder about how you define this Jewish-Socialist-Monarchist conspiracy that doesn’t actually exist because none of the terms you’re using actually mean what you’re trying to use them to mean.
For what it’s worth, America’s system is closest to the European Fascist model - a huge military, lots of weapons, lots of aggression, lots of chest-beating pride in the flag and the nation, a top-down model of government with a lot of power vested in a single individual, and a perfect collusion between the corporate and governmental institutions. But of course, Americans never actually blame the right people for anything, they are so well misdirected, and so easily misdirected. It’s what makes political discussion with them impossible, and makes the forthcoming ‘what goes around comes around’ slaughter all the more entertaining.
" For what it’s worth, America’s system is closest to the European Fascist model - a huge military, lots of weapons, lots of aggression, lots of chest-beating pride in the flag and the nation, a top-down model of government with a lot of power vested in a single individual, and a perfect collusion between the corporate and governmental institutions. "
That is a good description of the Soviet Union. What the USSR and Nazi Germany shared however and what makes them unlike the USA, is their overt dismissal of individual rights. In the totalitarian state, the individual officially does not matter.
Incidentally, Israel is the exact antithesis of this.