Honest question: Is supporting Communism over America “treason”?

[rdean]

Definition of Treason:
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Legal definition:
From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
Treason

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Legal Definition of Treason

Say you send millions of American Jobs to China, building up that communist country, as well as inventions and new technologies and that leads to a collapse here, would that be considered “treason”? If not, why not?

What about if you closed important industries, say, the only rare earths mine in the country? One that our military depends on, thereby possibly crippling our military. Would that be considered “treason”?

What if you asked foreign countries to send money here for political campaigns to keep jobs from returning to this country? Would that be considered “treason”?

At what point does bringing harm to this country turn from spite or greed, to “treason”?

No. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that designates a certain political party or economic model.

"Socialism" is a bad word in this country, but only because it goes against our traditions and not our laws.

Directly from the US Constitution:

or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort

If Communist China is NOT our enemy, then are they our "friend"?

If they are NOT our friend, then why are we building up their country at the expense of our own.

During the Bush years, the US government sent them "aid to the poor".

We are tearing up OUR paved roads and replacing them with gravel. China is putting in high speed trains.

We can hardly get a foot in the door in China to sell US products.

They sell products BELOW the cost of the materials to drive US businesses out of business and then raise the prices, since they now have no competition.

 

[JBeukema]

"Socialism" is a bad word in this country, but only because it goes against our traditions

The Peterborough Town Library  The Oldest Free Public Library in the World Supported by Taxation

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/agjst.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes Deany, all computer chips are the same.

Go take your X-box and fire it towards Pashtun.

OH MY GOD! YOU DON'T KNOW! THAT'S HILARIOUS!

VIDEO games have become increasingly realistic, especially those involving armed combat. America’s armed forces have even used video games as recruitment and training tools. But the desire to play games is not the reason why the United States Air Force recently issued a procurement request for 2,200 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) video-game consoles. It intends to link them up to build a supercomputer that will run Linux, a free, open-source operating system. It will be used for research, including the development of high-definition imaging systems for radar, and will cost around one-tenth as much as a conventional supercomputer. The air force has already built a smaller computer from a cluster of 336 PS3s.

Military use of consumer technology: War games | The Economist | eyebeam.org

developing the cell chip from the PS3

Researchers Are Studying The Use Of The PlayStation 3 Cell chip To Track Tumor Growth | HighTech EDGE

I keep telling you guys to study some science, but NOOOOOO. Science is for elitists.

Do you know how stupid you guys just make yourselves look? Hmmm, I wonder if I could make this an entire thread. What a hoot!

This is why these guys should study science. Seriously. They laugh and point and when confronted with evidence they are wrong, either make personal attacks or run away.

Makmoody Ahmadinjahead, "fuck the centrifuges! I got an Xbox! Death to America!!"

 

[rdean]

OH MY GOD! YOU DON'T KNOW! THAT'S HILARIOUS!

VIDEO games have become increasingly realistic, especially those involving armed combat. America’s armed forces have even used video games as recruitment and training tools. But the desire to play games is not the reason why the United States Air Force recently issued a procurement request for 2,200 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) video-game consoles. It intends to link them up to build a supercomputer that will run Linux, a free, open-source operating system. It will be used for research, including the development of high-definition imaging systems for radar, and will cost around one-tenth as much as a conventional supercomputer. The air force has already built a smaller computer from a cluster of 336 PS3s.

Military use of consumer technology: War games | The Economist | eyebeam.org

developing the cell chip from the PS3

Researchers Are Studying The Use Of The PlayStation 3 Cell chip To Track Tumor Growth | HighTech EDGE

I keep telling you guys to study some science, but NOOOOOO. Science is for elitists.

Do you know how stupid you guys just make yourselves look? Hmmm, I wonder if I could make this an entire thread. What a hoot!

This is why these guys should study science. Seriously. They laugh and point and when confronted with evidence they are wrong, either make personal attacks or run away.

Makmoody Ahmadinjahead, "fuck the centrifuges! I got an Xbox! Death to America!!"

He wouldn't know how to work even that. Religious people don't do well doing "science". Look at the Republicans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why these guys should study science. Seriously. They laugh and point and when confronted with evidence they are wrong, either make personal attacks or run away.

Makmoody Ahmadinjahead, "fuck the centrifuges! I got an Xbox! Death to America!!"

He wouldn't know how to work even that. Religious people don't do well doing "science". Look at the Republicans.

Yawn.

94% of Rdean post are not worth the electrons killed in making them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't believe what I'm reading.

The lowest wages in China, depending on the province is 88.75 a month BY LAW. That is $1065.00 in a year.

-----------------------------------

The government in 2009 suspended its requirement that the lowest salaries be increased at least once every two years to help companies weather the impact of the global financial crisis,

China Provinces Raise Minimum Wages to Curb Disputes - BusinessWeek

July 1 (Bloomberg) -- At least nine Chinese provinces and cities will raise minimum wages from today by as much as a third after Premier Wen Jiabao called for measures to head off growing worker unrest in the world’s third-largest economy.

Beijing is increasing the lowest monthly salary employers may pay in the Chinese capital to 960 yuan ($142) from 800 yuan, according to the city government’s website. Central China’s Henan, the nation’s most populous province with almost 100 million residents, is raising its minimum wage by 33 percent to 600 yuan, the local government said on its website.

-------------------------------------------------

What is shocking.

Republicans would defend moving Amercan jobs and businesses to a communist country.

That Republicans would try to insist that China "isn't really" communist. That's insane.

That Republicans defend salaries of 88 and 142 dollars a month.

What is there to say? You guys are awful. Truly awful You can't possibly try to pass such bullshit off as "fair trade". And yet, there you are. Doing it.

Politicians defend it rdean, that includes Democrats.

Yea, like one or two.

Do right wingers on this site defend it? 88 dollars a month?

How much does $88 a month buy over there? Would you rather them raise the minimum wage to $88 an hour, and watch a billion people starve?

 

[midcan5]

An additional question, is corporatism treasonous? Do corporations support America when they move their shops overseas solely for increased profit? Do you shop and buy American made?


"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Risk-Out-Democracy-Communication/dp/0252066162]Amazon.com: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty (History of Communication) (9780252066160): Alex Carey: Books[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An additional question, is corporatism treasonous? Do corporations support America when they move their shops overseas solely for increased profit? Do you shop and buy American made?


"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Amazon.com: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty (History of Communication) (9780252066160): Alex Carey: Books

Do Progressive taxes and regulations making it more appealing to move offshore are actually treasonous.

Interesting, I never thought about it that way

 

[frazzledgear]

Are you saying you have no problem with communism?

Are you really claiming China is a Communist society?





Moron.

That is what they sort of identify themselves as...

But having been there numerous times..I don't see it.

You don't see it because you don't exist there as a citizen -who aren't there as tourists like you. No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes. Right down to their "One Child" law and state coercion of abortions of women in specific regions of the country and disenfranchisement of any child a woman refuses to abort who is forever treated as a permanent "non-citizen" with no rights to even work. That serves as added pressure on the mother to avoid giving birth to a child the state says their slave may not have if she knows the future misery she would be saddling that child with. You know, all the kind of stuff they don't parade out for the tourists they hope to try and part from their money. Mmm - I don't know, it sure all adds up to "not free" and pretty typical of communism in my book.

It is impossible for individual freedoms and communism to coexist because a free people invariably reject the mass misery that is produced by communism and existing as state owned slaves. It is also why communist regimes must imprison political prisoners. Communists insist some speech is so dangerous that others must be protected from even hearing it -but what that really means is that free speech is dangerous to the communist regime and the ability of the ruling elite to keep THEIR power and control over all others. Free people never choose enslavement and even if liberals refuse to face reality, communism is state enslavement of the people with the state claiming ownership of the individual and all he produces. It is why citizens of communist nations are not allowed to freely travel where and when they wish and it is restricted to a trusted special elite. They know their slaves are highly unlikely to come back because slavery, even when it is state run slavery, is not a satisfying way to live out one's existence on this planet.

By the way, the new code for the state owned and controlled economy is "state capitalism" -but inserting the word "capitalism" doesn't make it so and never will. The state relying more on "supply and demand" to determine what and how much will be produced and offered at what prices doesn't make it capitalism or a free market. It is a phrase intended to work on dupes who want to think there really isn't much difference between their system and our own. China is a communist nation. And the Chinese people are state owned slaves and the state still keeps all but their most trusted slaves at home and away from free nations for fear they won't return. And Chairman Mao was one of the world's worst, most brutal, evil and INHUMANE mass murderers in HISTORY and no amount of historical revisionism or admiration of the man by the left will ever change that.

If you are claiming China is not a communist nation JBeukema, then you are the moron. China is a communist nation -and it is ruled the Communist Party of China and ONLY by the Communist Party of China which tolerates NO challenge to its control and ownership of the Chinese people -which is why it still imprisons any slave who dares use their speech for anything but warbling on about how wonderful it is to be owned as the slave of the Communist Party of China.

 

[rdean]

Are you really claiming China is a Communist society?





Moron.

That is what they sort of identify themselves as...

But having been there numerous times..I don't see it.

You don't see it because you don't exist there as a citizen -who aren't there as tourists like you. No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes. Right down to their "One Child" law and state coercion of abortions of women in specific regions of the country and disenfranchisement of any child a woman refuses to abort who is forever treated as a permanent "non-citizen" with no rights to even work. That serves as added pressure on the mother to avoid giving birth to a child the state says their slave may not have if she knows the future misery she would be saddling that child with. You know, all the kind of stuff they don't parade out for the tourists they hope to try and part from their money. Mmm - I don't know, it sure all adds up to "not free" and pretty typical of communism in my book.

It is impossible for individual freedoms and communism to coexist because a free people invariably reject the mass misery that is produced by communism and existing as state owned slaves. It is also why communist regimes must imprison political prisoners. Communists insist some speech is so dangerous that others must be protected from even hearing it -but what that really means is that free speech is dangerous to the communist regime and the ability of the ruling elite to keep THEIR power and control over all others. Free people never choose enslavement and even if liberals refuse to face reality, communism is state enslavement of the people with the state claiming ownership of the individual and all he produces. It is why citizens of communist nations are not allowed to freely travel where and when they wish and it is restricted to a trusted special elite. They know their slaves are highly unlikely to come back because slavery, even when it is state run slavery, is not a satisfying way to live out one's existence on this planet.

By the way, the new code for the state owned and controlled economy is "state capitalism" -but inserting the word "capitalism" doesn't make it so and never will. The state relying more on "supply and demand" to determine what and how much will be produced and offered at what prices doesn't make it capitalism or a free market. It is a phrase intended to work on dupes who want to think there really isn't much difference between their system and our own. China is a communist nation. And the Chinese people are state owned slaves and the state still keeps all but their most trusted slaves at home and away from free nations for fear they won't return. And Chairman Mao was one of the world's worst, most brutal, evil and INHUMANE mass murderers in HISTORY and no amount of historical revisionism or admiration of the man by the left will ever change that.

If you are claiming China is not a communist nation JBeukema, then you are the moron. China is a communist nation -and it is ruled the Communist Party of China and ONLY by the Communist Party of China which tolerates NO challenge to its control and ownership of the Chinese people -which is why it still imprisons any slave who dares use their speech for anything but warbling on about how wonderful it is to be owned as the slave of the Communist Party of China.

Thank you so much for a brilliant post. Putting the situation into words much better than I ever could.

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

 

[rdean]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Whatever they call it, it's more of the type of government that conservatives might want than liberals. Maybe that's why you guys can't seem to bring yourselves to want to criticize it?

Remember, it's conservatives who would put into their State Party Platform, such things as, "Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion". Mandating religion is just as bad as outlawing religion.

It's conservatives who are always trying to stifle civil rights. Ask the gays and the feminists and the blacks and the Hispanics and the Muslims.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Whatever they call it, it's more of the type of government that conservatives might want than liberals. Maybe that's why you guys can't seem to bring yourselves to want to criticize it?

Remember, it's conservatives who would put into their State Party Platform, such things as, "Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion". Mandating religion is just as bad as outlawing religion.

It's conservatives who are always trying to stifle civil rights. Ask the gays and the feminists and the blacks and the Hispanics and the Muslims.

It wasn't Conservatives who used blacks and Guatemalans for syphilis experiments; it was Democrats

It wasn't Conservatives who interred Japanese American during WWII; it was Democrats

It wasn't a Conservative who said of his own SCOTUS pick, "When I appoint a ****** to the bench, I want everyone to know he's a ******," that was LBJ

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Those things do not make them Communist, it makes them a totalitarian Government.

Which is exactly what I said.

The facts on the ground in china do not support the idea that they are still communist. They have fully embraced a hybrid of Capitalism and totalitarianism.

 

[rdean]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Those things do not make them Communist, it makes them a totalitarian Government.

Which is exactly what I said.

The facts on the ground in china do not support the idea that they are still communist. They have fully embraced a hybrid of Capitalism and totalitarianism.

Amazing how much more you know than everyone else. You must be smart. The CIA, China, the newspapers, the people of China and on and on all say something different. The bottom line is the right wing seems to want to build up that country, but not this one. Perhaps you know the reason for that?

 

[rdean]

LOL just because they call it the Communist Party of China, does not mean their policies are in anyway communist anymore.

China has become some sort of Hybrid Capitalist totalitarian system.

They gave up on Communism awhile back.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Whatever they call it, it's more of the type of government that conservatives might want than liberals. Maybe that's why you guys can't seem to bring yourselves to want to criticize it?

Remember, it's conservatives who would put into their State Party Platform, such things as, "Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion". Mandating religion is just as bad as outlawing religion.

It's conservatives who are always trying to stifle civil rights. Ask the gays and the feminists and the blacks and the Hispanics and the Muslims.

It was Conservatives who used blacks and Guatemalans for syphilis experiments; it was Democrats

It wasn't Conservatives who interred Japanese American during WWII; it was Democrats

It wasn't a Conservative who said of his own SCOTUS pick, "When I appoint a ****** to the bench, I want everyone to know he's a ******," that was LBJ

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

You have "conservatives" and "democrats" mislabeled. It was in the 60's that conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican party because they didn't like the blacks. This is fairly recent history.

By 1968 conservatives dominated the Republican Party (they had been the majority of the Democratic Party before 1960). In 1960 Nixon had wooed those on his left; eight years later he employed the conservative speechwriter Pat Buchanan, chose the fiery Spiro Agnew as his running mate, and trumpeted his anti-Communist credentials and his opposition to busing to win southern delegates. Nixon was not an ideological conservative, but to gain the nomination he had to appeal to the party's new conservative majority.

The Conservative 1960s - 95.12

------------------------------------

You sit in front of the Internet. Do some research.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of the press, no right to petition the government, no right to the leadership of their choice as opposed to that imposed by government with meaningless elections, no freedom to travel where and when they want and of course the typical imprisonment of political prisoners seen under all communist regimes.

Whatever they call it, it's more of the type of government that conservatives might want than liberals. Maybe that's why you guys can't seem to bring yourselves to want to criticize it?

Remember, it's conservatives who would put into their State Party Platform, such things as, "Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion". Mandating religion is just as bad as outlawing religion.

It's conservatives who are always trying to stifle civil rights. Ask the gays and the feminists and the blacks and the Hispanics and the Muslims.

It was Conservatives who used blacks and Guatemalans for syphilis experiments; it was Democrats

It wasn't Conservatives who interred Japanese American during WWII; it was Democrats

It wasn't a Conservative who said of his own SCOTUS pick, "When I appoint a ****** to the bench, I want everyone to know he's a ******," that was LBJ

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

You have "conservatives" and "democrats" mislabeled. It was in the 60's that conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican party because they didn't like the blacks. This is fairly recent history.

By 1968 conservatives dominated the Republican Party (they had been the majority of the Democratic Party before 1960). In 1960 Nixon had wooed those on his left; eight years later he employed the conservative speechwriter Pat Buchanan, chose the fiery Spiro Agnew as his running mate, and trumpeted his anti-Communist credentials and his opposition to busing to win southern delegates. Nixon was not an ideological conservative, but to gain the nomination he had to appeal to the party's new conservative majority.

The Conservative 1960s - 95.12

------------------------------------

You sit in front of the Internet. Do some research.

LBJ and FDR were Conservatives?

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

 

[rdean]

It was Conservatives who used blacks and Guatemalans for syphilis experiments; it was Democrats

It wasn't Conservatives who interred Japanese American during WWII; it was Democrats

It wasn't a Conservative who said of his own SCOTUS pick, "When I appoint a ****** to the bench, I want everyone to know he's a ******," that was LBJ

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

You have "conservatives" and "democrats" mislabeled. It was in the 60's that conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican party because they didn't like the blacks. This is fairly recent history.

By 1968 conservatives dominated the Republican Party (they had been the majority of the Democratic Party before 1960). In 1960 Nixon had wooed those on his left; eight years later he employed the conservative speechwriter Pat Buchanan, chose the fiery Spiro Agnew as his running mate, and trumpeted his anti-Communist credentials and his opposition to busing to win southern delegates. Nixon was not an ideological conservative, but to gain the nomination he had to appeal to the party's new conservative majority.

The Conservative 1960s - 95.12

------------------------------------

You sit in front of the Internet. Do some research.

LBJ and FDR were Conservatives?

There's wrong, then there's Rdean wrong.

The parties back then weren't as "polorized" as they are today. You still didn't do any research.

I guess you guys don't bother with facts other than the ones you make up.

 

[impalero]

Sorry for the long winded post, but its something I want to share my thoughts on:


I'd say Treason depends on who the country is at war with, not on their political system.
But more importantly, where our corporations and trading lies. Democrat or Republican, it does not matter to corporations or our leaders as long as we are doing business with them.

Saddam Hussein was the US's biggest ally as an example before he invaded Kuwait, since Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory. Saddam asked April Glaspie, the then US American Diplomat in contact with Saddam, what the US policy was on this matter, and she replied they had no opinion on it.

Basically, in the US and with regards to corporations, might makes right, as do profits, and it is not right for any citizen to question their policy least they get the big end of a stick.

Our trade with Iraq prior to 1990 involved all sorts of goods including weaponry, then to 0 trade following the Iraq war. We are trading again of course since we have our puppet installed in there that is friendly to the US.

The mantra that we are trading with China in order to raise their standard of living is a bunch of hogwash. It was only used as a selling point to the public in order to pass NAFTA, WTO etc. Business's are amoral and all their decisions are based only on profits. They don't even need to be doing poorly in the US to outsource, if it spells more profits, plus the incentives they receive from the US gov for doing so.

For example, GE has been making good profits in the US (18B in 2009), but despite that, they are investing their capital in green technology (So much for GREEN in the US) by building a huge plant in India which will employ 3000 technicians (Not low skilled workers)


When it comes to international trade, corporations do not have any allegiance for their host countries, nor do they believe in supporting them. Though, they certainly did get relegated as a "person" in order to reap the benefits of their hosts.

What will happen, is more and more jobs will be outsourced, going up the technical ladder as those other countries get more educated.

In order to have a break even chance of competing, health care, transportation, housing, food, education, insurance etc have to drop to the wages of those in other countries.

Right now the median cost of housing is over 250,000 dollars, while the median household income is around 50,000. The rule when buying a house is no more than 2-3x your annual income. Clearly, we have a long ways to drop before we get back to a sensible level like it was in the 80's where median household income and prices was on par with that rule.


Instead, the government along with the banks, want to keep the prices inflated which is ridiculous. The same way they have provided easy credit via cards and inflated housing to maintain our standard of living as jobs were being offshored. Our wages and COL needs to drop to that of our competitors so that we will be on equal footing.

The bailout was a big mistake because it was what was needed to adjust things lower.
Yes, people, and especially those big banks like Goldman Sachs would have felt the brunt of it from their crooked CDS, and perhaps worse than the Great Depression.

But with parasitic banks, like Goldman Sachs, whom funds both the Democrat and Republican campaigns, sometimes theres going to be pain when the parasite is removed from the host.

I liken it to the alien attached to the guys face in the movie Alien. Keeping him alive long enough to feed off of him before it gives birth.

Nothing has been fixed and the ones that caused the problems, namely our crooked government along with the banks continue to play the same game.

Will you be willing to go along with Bailout number 2?


Not that we have a say in it....