US federal government takes a 10% stake in Intel
- Thread starter PAF
- Start date
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,396
Even the Wikipedia has been updated.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Owner: U.S. Department of Commerce (10%)
Intel - Wikipedia
Owner: U.S. Department of Commerce (10%)
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,396
I stand corrected. You are a soulless bot with no ears
Another libelous lie from the bullbot.
What makes you ASSume we like any government at all, ass?
Moo.
Libertarians when foreign governments buy a percentage of a corporation:
Another libelous lie from the bullbot.
What makes you ASSume we like any government at all, ass?
Moo.
Snowball
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,234
What matters most is WHO they are. And what they are after.
Parts 1 and 2 mp3:
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,396
I can't even buy my favorite Pork Sausage anymore without buying it from the Chinese Communist party's government in Beijing.
I have been buying it for decades and now they own the company.
The real crime is they still call it Farmer Johns.
I have never met a Chinaman named "John"
Last edited:
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,396
Ask a Mexican and he'll say that's what they call their money.
Not that anybody wants to come to a thread about fascism and talk sausage with a lying, libelous bullbot.
Moo
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,396
My grandpa used to say cowshit smells like money.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,396
Not if you have the right principles, no. In a principled society it doesn't matter if they're operating on the wrong reasons, they're still limited to doing the right thing.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,396
Everything smells like what you're full of, because you can't smell anything else.
But since a bot can't smell I guess you didn't know that.
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
.
So, pro fascist is now a position acceptable to “liberty” activists?
Who knew?
So, pro fascist is now a position acceptable to “liberty” activists?
Who knew?
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
Quit being such a "better than thou" purist, will you? It's so uncalled for.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
https://x.com/dylanmallman/status/1959701180075925858
What is left of MAGA is not a movement of people anymore.
It is a machine of obedience, an unthinking chorus that chants on cue, mouths moving in sync to words they did not write, serving ends they will never taste.
They call it strength, patriotism, tradition, but all I see is a hollowed mass where individuals once stood.
They are no longer living their own lives. They are living as surrogates for someone else, their time and energy siphoned to feed a grifter’s empire. They tell themselves this is their fight, their rebellion, their restoration, yet they are simply pawns, devoting their existence to the preservation of one man’s ego and the parasitic ecosystem that has grown fat around it.
The zealots are worse than the grifters. At least the grifters are aware, at least they are doing something for themselves in a crooked way. They know what they are doing and they steal openly, even if it means hollowing out the country to line their own pockets. It at least has a kind of coherence.
The zealots, though, dissolve into nothing, surrendering every shred of their individuality to the dream of belonging. They believe their obedience is freedom, that their subservience is courage. They cheer while their chains tighten, convinced they forged them themselves. They carry water for the very people who mock them behind closed doors, and they do it with pride. They have not simply been conquered, they have been pacified, and they kneel with gratitude while insisting they are standing tall.
What makes this especially grotesque is that it is not even in service of something formidable. If this was the iron discipline of an empire that conquered continents, at least the scale of the illusion might match the devotion.
But no, this is in service of the cheapest, most transparent carnival of corruption imaginable. A government packed with incompetence and greed, lurching backward on every promise, unraveling its own slogans faster than they can be repeated. Loyal crooks where "public service" is nothing more than self-service and every position is handed out as a favor. A stage where slogans of strength mask the steady selling off of the country piece by piece, where the language of order hides chaos, favoritism, and impunity.
It is a spectacle of corruption so obvious it barely bothers with disguise, yet the followers drink it as though it were salvation, convinced it is greatness. Every failure is paraded as triumph, every betrayal of principle excused as part of some grand design. Anyone with even the faintest sense could have seen this coming from a mile away. The writing was already on the wall during the first administration, but when the campaign season began, everyone chose amnesia, too fragile to accept what it truly was.
It is just another mask for the same deep state they once railed against, only worse. Because the very people who would have otherwise been the fighters, the dissenters, the ones ready to tear at the machinery, are now subdued. They are not just subdued, they are actively participating in their own nightmare, the same nightmare they once warned against. They have become the obedient army of the very order they claimed to hate, and they smile while doing it. They are wasting their lives in the ugliest way possible.
Imagine living decades only to give yourself away so cheaply, to devote every ounce of breath to carrying water for a man who sees you as disposable, to march under a banner that betrays its own words every single day. And for what? For the thrill of belonging to a crowd, for the comfort of avoiding the anxiety of thinking for yourself, for the false security of a leader who thrives on your dependency.
They should feel shame deeper than death itself, but shame requires a self, and that has been surrendered.
They have allowed themselves to be emptied, and in the place where their individuality should be stands a slogan, a hat, a chant. There is no greatness here. There is no rebellion. There is only obedience in its most pitiful form.
When the years of this administration finish, they will look back at what they defended and see nothing but ruins and lies. And it will be too late, because they will have already given away the only thing that could have mattered: their own lives, which they never truly lived.
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,424
Considering that I respect and encourage your right to secede on an individual level, I don't see how anarcho-fascist secessionists like myself, are the problem
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
It's not anarcho-fascist secessionists who are the problem. It's the ones who aren't the the outer two words, or at least one of them [for real] at the minimum.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
Ain't no new news.
We Are All Socialists Now
https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-all-socialists-now-82577
{Jon Meacham | 06 February 2009}
The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."
There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.
We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.
If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.
As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.
All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.
This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.
The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.
Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.
Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.
The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.
We Are All Socialists Now
https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-all-socialists-now-82577
{Jon Meacham | 06 February 2009}
The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."
There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.
We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.
If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.
As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.
All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.
This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.
The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.
Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.
Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.
The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.
Similar threads
