Everyone jabbers on about an Apple iCar, but what if Microsoft built a car? You’d get this — a 1967 Mustang body on a 2012 Mustang with blazing lights, Windows Phone controls, an Xbox 360, and tablets everywhere. Called “Project Detroit,” it’s actually the Windows Vista of Mustangs.

Designed by the occasionally clever/usually tacky team at West Coast Custom and filled with tech by Microsoft at the behest of the software giant, the Project Detroit Mustang is an interesting blend of good, bad, and ridiculous.

On the good side, the grafting of (we assume) one of Ford’s reproduced Mustang bodies onto the 2012 Ford Mustang GT platform appears thoughtfully crafted. The interior trim matches up quite well and the matte black body is banging. The alpine blue LED lights in the grille with a Windows logo is a nice KITT-like touch.

Unfortunately, the inclusion of unnecessarily large wheels with built-in lights screams tasteless casemod and ruins what could have been a stellar stance. It’s how you know it’s a WCC job.

Microsoft provided the ridiculous with the addition of a Best Buy airport kiosk’s worth of Microsoft electronics communicating through a built-in WiFi network. The car can be located, unlocked, and remotely started from a Nokia Windows Phone (like you’ve been able to do on an iPhone for years).

The gauge cluster has been replaced with a touchscreen and a Windows tablet adorns the passenger-side dashboard. From there the passenger can surf the web or, more importantly, send messages to others via a display in the rear windshield. They can also play not-at-all-distracting Xbox games.

There are Kinects embedded throughout the car that allow live audio/video streaming between the car and a Windows Phone or the on-board screens.

Because that’s totally necessary.

As expected from a Microsoft project, there are a lot of interesting ideas and a few awful ones thrown into one package.

Source: Jalopnik.

Kony 2012, hyped on the backs of celebrities and do-gooders, is revealed for what it is– a propaganda salvo for a continent wide invasion of Africa. Yes, the mantra War is Peace is once again drumming U.S. soldiers into further conflict.

Research makes clear that KONY is a sophisticated psy-op to muster popular support for what is, in reality, nothing more than a geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis China for oil and mineral resources, as well as an effort to legitimize the U.S. military’s AFRICOM unit in the region through newly-branded “humanitarian” interventions.

It is not only War in the name of “Peace,” but an attempt to empower the International Criminal Courtunder the influence of NGOs and other related globalist corporate interests.

Nobel Peace Prize “winner” Barack Obama has already deployed 100 special forces troops to the central African region back in October 2011, and a resolution in Congress– on the heels of KONY 2012′s viral views of at lest 80 million– seeks to send more forces there for an all out invasion on the pretext of hunting down a shadowy warlord with less blood on his hands than an average African despot.

Top celebrities vying for greater power including CFR member and UN goodwill ambassadorAngelina Jolie, actor George Clooney, media baroness Oprah Winfrey, as well as Africa-obsessed Bill Gates and Bono, have all come out in front of this issue.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet.

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, the Associated Press reports. Manning is most famous for allegedly leaking troves of classified documents, including State Department cables and Military files, to WikiLeaks. He was arraigned last week in Ft. Meade, Maryland and is being charged with “engineering the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.”

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who allegedly received the leaked information from Manning, wasnominated last year for the award, though he did not ultimately receive it.

The AP notes that “Being nominated doesn’t say anything about a candidate’s chances. A wide range of submissions come in every year from lawmakers, university professors and others with nomination rights, but the decision rests solely with a five-member panel appointed by Norway’s parliament.”

Manning’s nomination places him along side Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other international figures, who have been nominated for this year’s award. The Norway committee awards the prize annually.

President Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, his first year in the executive office.

Source: The Weekly Standard.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Giving us another example of what happens when you mix ego and poor primary performance, the major story going into the South Carolina primary is the new line of attack being employed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on Mitt Romney. Failing to win over voters by attacking Romney’s record as governor, the pair has turned their sights on Romney the CEO. While Rick Perry has introduced us to “Vulture Capitalism”, Gingrich is employing a 22-minute film criticizing Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, depicting Romney as “worse than the evil banker in “It’s a Wonderful Life.””

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

Though their critiques on Bain Capital seem more appropriate coming from Chicago, Perry and Gingrich’s underlying instincts are correct. The primary, insofar that it is a referendum on the establishment-favorite, has little to do with Governor Romney, whose only real noteworthy achievement is the despised Romneycare. No, the candidacy of Mitt Romney is based entirely on his history in the private sector. It is his success as a CEO that allows him to claim he is the one candidate who understands “the real economy”.

Unfortunately for the country, Romney’s economic literacy is the biggest myth of the primary.

It would be too easy to highlight the fact that Romney subscribes to the same flawed belief that “fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege,” a major contributor to the environment that created the disastrous housing bubble (after all, he said that as Governor, and Candidate Romney is nothing like Governor Romney). Instead, let’s take a look at one of Candidate Romney’s favorite topics: China.

If you have tuned in to any of the GOP debates, you should already know that he is not a big fan. On the subject of trade policy, his website highlights a plan on “Confronting China,” including the aggressive action of labeling the pseudo-Communist nation as “currency manipulators.” He goes on to criticize the Obama Administration’s “acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy.” America, he believes, must be we must be “willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.” To anyone who would argue that there are benefits to our current relationship with the Asian power, you are being “played like a fiddle.”

As such, it is interesting that one of his top economic advisers is Harvard professor Greg Mankiw.

In 2009, Mankiw took to the New York Times to criticize the Obama Administration for threatening much of the same policy his candidate now advocates. In what would be a fitting response to Romney’s accusation of “cheating”, Mankiw writes:

“Like many economists, I cringe whenever I hear the term “fair trade.” It is not that I am against fairness — who is? — but the word “fair” is so amorphous in this context as to defy definition. Most often, the slogan “fair trade” is little more than a rallying cry for protectionism.”

Protectionism? From the man who believes he is the only one who can save capitalism from Barack Obama? Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

But what of China’s “currency manipulation” Professor Mankiw?

“Perhaps the oddest thing about [the criticism of currency manipulation] is that [the] complaint seems out of date. The yuan-dollar exchange rate has moved considerably in recent years. After a long period of completely fixing the exchange rate, China allowed its currency to start moving in July 2005. Since then, it has appreciated by 21 percent.” (Since this article was written in 2009, it is worth noting the information is not out of date. The Chiense yuan hit an 18-year high in April of 2011.)

So according to Romney’s own expect, his major claim against China is a complete fabrication.

A cynic may argue that Romney doesn’t believe any of the baloney he preaches about China. That he is using our economic rival as a scapegoat for a public looking for someone to blame for their economic pain. This would contradict a POLITICO report that “Romney is dead serious about…putting new tariffs on Chinese imports,” but information from unnamed insiders isn’t always reliable.

So we must conclude that either Romney doesn’t fully understand the trade policy he advocates, or Romney is a demagogue not above misleading the American people to win an election. Sadly even the latter explanation doesn’t defend the governor from Mankiw’s criticism:

“Directing attention to the China currency issue amid a worldwide recession and growing fears of depression is more than a distraction. It is downright counterproductive.”

If we are to brand Romney an economic expert because of his success in the private sector, how does the GOP defend itself from the criticism of Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Being a good President is different than being a savvy CEO. The failure of Romney’s opponents to credibly attack Romney’s credentials in the economy is the reason Romney’s candidacy has the strength it does today. Interestingly, the candidate who is criticized for “crank economic theory”, almost as frequently as Romney is praised for his understanding, is the only one in the GOP field who identified the housing bubble years before it crippled the US economy – Ron Paul.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

We are practically 30 debates in and we still have like 120 left. There are so many now that I have to date the debates in the article title. I can no longer write early, mid or late before the month. It’s only the 9th of November and this is the second debate just this month. We still have at least three more in November alone. There is actually another one in just three days. It’s maddening and it is getting to the point where chronicling all these GOP shit shows is taking a lot more time than I ever anticipated. At the end of the day, I do actually like writing about them and bringing you, the reader, my extended two cents. It’s just time consuming and intrusive to my life when I work more than full-time and party on top of that every waken moment. But whatevs, I’m out of mini bottles of Seven Tiki at the moment, so I guess it’s time to direct my attention at something much more important.

This debate was pretty good overall, other than the typical lack of time given to Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul, when given time, was on his goddamned A game! He was hotter in this debate than any other. His answers were on point and exacting. I think in the eyes of the standard Fox News watching conservative viewer, he may have gained some points simply for the fact that this debate was strictly economic. This allowed Paul to hit some home runs without being scrutinized every other question like when the talk of the moment is foreign policy. Not that Paul is wrong on foreign policy, he is dead right but conservatives refuse to accept reason, logic or common sense and instead continue down the path of repetitive stupidity and fear-mongering when it comes to handling our “enemies”. Anyway, this is about the debate, not conservative idiosyncrasies.

CNBC hits us weakly with their subpar video introduction which makes note of the fact that the debate is all about economics and that it is in Michigan, in the backyard of the companies that received the auto industry bailouts. Thanks for cluing us in and reminding us that Detroit is in fact in Michigan. CNBC, after the intro, lets us know that there will be no opening and closing statements, as they want to dedicate more time to the debate. Well that’s nice of them! We can’t have Bachmann wasting five minutes on telling us how her 18,371st foster kid Bruce whittled a recorder out of oak with a wolverine’s broken jaw bone. It is probably worth noting that Michigan native Romney got the loudest pop from the crowd during the brief introductions.

The moderators for this debate were pretty decent and straightforward for the most part, although this was overshadowed by the fact that they had Jim Cramer from “Mad Money” on the panel. This guy is a fucking dickwad that claims to be a real capitalist while calling for more regulations and other ridiculous bullshit. Not only that but Cramer is just a loud obnoxious moron that sounds like he is cutting a wrestling promo against his opponent whenever he asks a question. Having Jim Cramer as a debate moderator is like having the Ultimate Warrior read children’s stories after he rubbed angeldust on his gums. He’s a about as colorful, as scary and as unfunny as a clown’s dick. I’d rather have CNN’s John King throat gurgle through the entire debate than listen to Cramer ask even one question.

Another thing worth noting, moderator Steve Liesman looks like Todd Packard from “The Office”.

I’m going to start off with Rick Santorum, just to get him out of the way. Per usual, he was ineffective and barely noticeable in this sea of shitpickles. His inclusion in these debates has gone beyond just being a joke and has gotten to the point that he is wasting everyone’s time, even his own. He needs to graciously bow out and just support whomever he feels he needs to latch onto to stay somewhat relevant. Problem is, Santorum staying relevant is like a stripper staying on the night shift after her 30th birthday.

It’s hard to even pay attention to Santorum, as he just spews his relgiotarded nonsense to the point that even the relgiotards aren’t listening anymore. His poll numbers are dismal and if Gary Johnson isn’t invited to most of these, Santorum shouldn’t be either. The same could be said for Jon Huntsman but I’ll get to him in a sec.

All I learned from Racquetball Rick this round is that he was a coal miner’s daughter. There was talk of Jesus and tennis but none of that really funny whining and crying he is synonymous with. Although when Ron Paul and some others were touting health savings accounts, Santorum said that he has been on that train for years and that he pretty much invented them. When everyone is asked about Obamacare, he is the only one without a real answer, as he just uses his time to boast about all the things he has done for health care. None of these things were really solutions, they were just attempts to build up and reinforce his wobbly house of cards with an empty hand. And that’s it for Santorum. He contributed nothing except his douchenugget dorkdick smile.

Jon Huntsman, another ding dong that needs to bow out was at least a bit more engaging than Santorum. At least a few of his answers and points come to mind when looking back, where Santorum gave us nothing.

The first thing Huntsman said that is worthy of a mention is that banks that are too big to fail will cause economic contagion. He also said that he is the president of the 99% but also the president of the 1% because he was going to unify everyone. People aren’t Voltron lions dude; they don’t just come together in times of need. He also said that spending $68 billion on bank bailouts was wrong. No shit cockwart! Huntsman also says that the government needs to charge extra fees to bailed out banks to alleviate the burden shoved onto the taxpayers.

As for Obamacare, Jon Huntsman says that as president, he would sit down with all the state governors and work out state specific health care options. Huh? WTF? Are you meeting with all of them at once or on a one-on-one basis? Cause this shit could take a while homie and we ain’t got the time! I guess it’s better than spending 90% of your time playing fucking golf though. Huntsman promises to find a solution to the high cost of health care. He needs to elaborate on this but really that’s just a waste as there are far simpler options.

On Mitt Romney’s plan to deal with China, which will be touched on here in a bit, Huntsman says that it isn’t a real solution and that he is just pandering. I’m assuming he means that Mitt is pandering to the crowd because I feel the same way. Mitt claims China is manipulating currency but Huntsman points out the the U.S. is manipulating its own currency with quantitative easing. Huntsman then goes on a rant about oatmeal and swords or something and that’s it.

Michele Bachmann was her typical self and just like a throwback to mainstream media Palin bashing, I have to point out this lady’s poor fashion choice. Basically her jacket was the exact same jacket Dr. No wore in his self-titled film “Dr. No”. Granted that was a James Bond movie, but Dr. No jacked the film title like Bachmann jacked Dr. No’s jacket. In any event, I could’ve sworn I saw Bachmann wiping 007′s blood off of her sleeve when she thought the camera wasn’t on her. Sorry, this makes Bachmann bashing too easy but it is hard to knock the guys fashion sense since they all were dapper suits. Being a woman in politics must suck because of assholes like me. Whatever, just stop dressing like a high-ranking member of SPECTRE and I’ll shut up.

Bachmann once again proves that she is just too fucking nice when the moderators give her a the perfect opportunity to go after Romney. She praises him and then switches to her standard Obama-bashing rhetoric. We’ve heard the catchphrases a few thousand times now lady. All I know is that she compared taxes to Happy Meals or something. Um dude, Happy Meals are happy, taxes are sad. I’m not following you.

When asked another question, she doesn’t really answer it. She just informs us, who are apparently clueless, on how Obama is doing it wrong. Well what is the right way lady? People who are supporting this woman are just supporting senseless substance-less Obama-bashing without any real answers, solutions or fixes. Bachmann calls Obama policy “lunacy”. Yes, she described something as “lunacy” and she wasn’t even looking in the mirror.

Michele Bachmann then warns us that the Chinese live in the Pentagon’s computers. I can understand that since the country is very heavily populated and they might want some peace and quiet from the hustle and bustle of Chinese life. Bachmann also points out that they are building secret tunnels to hide weapons and snacks. She says that the American taxpayers are the ones paying for it as we keep borrowing from China. Wait.. have we been paying them back? Damn! Well I want a ride on the Chinese aircraft carrier then!

Bachmann doesn’t say anything else. Well, she does but I have a hard time with my idiocy filter on. Yes, I am probably too hard on her but she is another candidate like Huntsman and Santorum, as she is just wasting everyone’s time. These debates would be so much better if we trimmed the fat. It’s about time for this to start happening. And unless she has some more concert tickets to give away for straw poll votes, her campaign is doomed at this point.

Another candidate that should definitely hang’m up, especially after this debate, is Texas Governor Rick Perry. This debate was career suicide for Perry and as much as I severely dislike this guy, I almost felt sorry for him. The biggest fuck up in debate history that I can remember came when Rick Perry went to tell us the three government agencies he would eliminate. After he listed the first two, his mind drew a 53 second blank on the third. The extremely awkward moment was capped off by him staring at the moderators completely dumbfounded until he uttered, “Oops”. The fact that he can’t even remember the basis for a huge part of his platform is fucking scary!

See for yourself:

Knocking Rick Perry on this is just too easy and the world has given him enough heat already. He’s still an asshole in my eyes and always will be but damn, I’d be surprised if he could win a fourth term as Texas Governor at this point.

There are some other notable Perry moments from the evening. The first is when Perry sends a message to the big banks when he says, “If you are too big too fail, you are too big.” M’kay? Perry then spends time pimping out his tax plan and other ideas he has, it only took him months to get his shit together and give us something. All previous debates were sprinkled with, “I’m working on it! You’ll see it soon at RickPerry.com! Yeeeeeehaaaaaw!!! (accompanied with gunfire)”.

Perry also goes on about how America needs to get energy going. He tells us that regulations are killing America. He then gives props to Santorum, thus giving the audience a little Rick on Rick love. I bet Santorum gives Perry tennis lessons.

When it comes to the Obamacare questions, Rick Perry says that people need to be given a “menu of options”. He says, “Doctors need to be given incentives on health care rather than sick care.”

He then goes on about how he created a job creation climate in Texas with no regulatory strangulation. He says that his tax plan will help balance the budget in 2020. Yeah bro, that’s like 8 years away. Is this so that you don’t have to answer to critics when your plan fails because just by chance, if you became president, and even won a second term, this would be at the very tail end of your eight year lease in the White House. 2020 is not today, we need a fix now!

Perry goes on a tangent about how universities need to be forced to be more efficient. Okay sir, did you get that idea from Hugo Chavez? Perry then closes out his portion of the debate by bitching about the corruption caused by corporate lobbyists. As he says this, he pauses to check his Wells Fargo app on his iPhone to make sure that check from Merck cleared.

The time thief Mitt Romney was successful at monopolizing every moment he could once again. I don’t blame Mr. Mittens however, as CNBC, just like Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, spent more time asking Romney questions than anyone else. I think Mitt alone gets about 30-40% of the time in these debates. That’s the mainstream media for ya though, proppin’ up their fancy handpicked golden boys.

Romney is first asked if the United States should bailout the European Union. The fact that the moderators even ask this question is proof at how many dumbasses work under the NBC banner. Romney says that the EU can take care of their own problems and that we don’t need to bail them out. Romney goes on to say that Europe needs to take care of their own problems and the United States shouldn’t be bailing out our own banks let alone Europe’s. I can’t disagree with that. When pressed however, Romney admits that he supports the World Bank and the IMF. Yep, I knew he couldn’t give a good statement without finding a way to fuck it up. After this, Mitt claims that he saved the Olympics. From what dude? Did the Skrulls attack or something?

Mitt’s had some other noteworthy quips and I’m not referring to the little swirl at the top of Dairy Queen products. Mitt said that we need profitable businesses that can hire people and the current administration is failing at this. He also says that we need to simplify the tax code but we need to lower taxes first. When asked about Obamacare, he says that health care should be a state issue. He also agrees with Ron Paul’s point that we need to push health savings accounts. Mitt also said that people need the broadest array of health care options.

In the second hour, Romney goes on to explain that Obama is only focused on his re-election. Apparently Romney needs to re-focus on his hair because it’s starting to melt under those hot lights. Maybe his hair is wax! He’s really just some weird bald guy under there!

Disregarding his wax sculpture, Mitt tells us that he promises to not raise taxes and that he will cut spending dramatically. Funny, because Reason Magazine analyzed Mitt’s fix-it plan and discovered that his “cuts” would actually expand the federal budget (read this).

Mr. Romney then tells us a spooky tale about the Chinese boogeyman. He states that he believes in free trade but not with China because they are evil. Actually he calls them “predatory” about a dozen times over the course of two minutes. Mitt says that China is hacking our computers and manipulating our currency. This causes Huntsman to butt in with the QE comment I referenced earlier. All I hear is “I love free trade but..” and “I love free trade but..” Mitt is a doublethinker and doublespeaker. Mitt’s solution in dealing with China is to assault them with tariffs. Yep, great idea ass bastard.

In the shadow of his sexual harassment circus, Herman Cain tried to ignore the media assault in an effort to see if he could fit the slogan “Nine.. nine.. nine” in the debate 999 times. I think he succeeded. In all seriousness, I’m fucking tired of this goddamned slogan and the people en masse are vehemently opposed to this plan. Then again, there are still a shit ton of Cain Brains supporting this inexperienced hack, who quotes Pokemon, can’t answer tough questions and often admits he spoke without thinking. With all of his weaknesses and with it being incredibly apparent that his inexperience is a major hinderance, this guy is still polling insanely well. Well, lets look at Herman Cain Superstar and his performance this debate.

All things considered, with all the shit he has been put through the last few weeks, Mr. Cain did pretty well overall. That is, if you’re into his flavor of Tea. For starters, he gets the first question and being the show starter he tells us that “We must assure our currency is sound.” That’s laugh-out-loud funny coming from a Federal Reserve insider that spends a lot of his time defending and pimping the most tyrannical institution in our country’s history.

Even though the moderators said the debate was to be focused on economics, the NBC-paid moderators are quick to question Cain’s character over the sexual harassment allegations. Cain brushes off the bullshit attempt to catch him in a “gotcha” question. The crowd erupts when Cain essentially says “I did not sleep with that young intern (or the other women either)!” They asked Cain if voters care about character. Cain responded by saying that voters don’t care about character assassination.

The next time Cain is questioned, he malfunctions (or does he) and starts chanting “Nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine..” over and over. He says that his solution is the only solution to the tax problem. Sure, if you believe hype and pro-Federal Reserve rhetoric. When challenged, once again, at how his plan could possibly stay at the rates of 9-9-9 with government being government, Mr. Cain said that it is transparent and that Americans will make politicians keep the rates at 9. ROFLMFAO! Yeah, just like Americans have been able to get those Tea Party Republicans to balance the budget and solve our economic woes as they promised before the 2010 midterm elections. C’mon people, unless we’re going to start cloning Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Justin Amash, all we’re ever going to get is full of shit candidates like everyone else. Maybe Cain just assumes that Republicans and Democrats are never going to hold office again. But wait.. he’s a Republican, so never mind.

Cain spends almost every other question finding a way to insert “nine.. nine.. nine..” in his answers. When he doesn’t say “nine.. nine.. nine..” he says “I have a bold solution” and then winks nine times.

When not shoving the number nine down our throats like the Count on Sesame Street, he does give us some substance. For instance, after referring to Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Nancy”, Cain tells us that the solution to Obamacare is to pass H.R. 3000. Wait, didn’t Cain say he wouldn’t sign any bill longer than three pages? Well H.R. 3000 is 270 pages. Maybe he meant he’ll sign every three pages. If that’s the case, he’ll have to sign H.R. 3000 into law 90 times! Seems like a waste of BIC SoftFeel Retractable Ballpoint Pens. I need to read up on H.R. 3000 but it seems like crap to me.

Towards the end of the debate, Cain actually talks in rhyme a few times. C’mon dude, really? We need a fucking president man! Are you running for the highest office in the land or are you auditioning for the role of Roadblock in the next “G.I. Joe” movie? FYI bro, the role was given to The Rock.

One thing is for certain, Cain is on to something. Every single time I heard the number nine, I felt a pain in my stomach and the need to drop a shit. I have a feeling that the 999 Plan is the long lost key to discovering the legendary brown note.

Now I’ve got to talk about Cain’s sweetheart, Newt Gingrich. Rumor has it that they were holding hands, when the camera wasn’t on them. Newt’s doesn’t care though, Newt doesn’t give a shit. Honey Badger comes out with a bang and with the first question asked him, his answer receives the loudest pop of the night. Not even because it was a great answer, it was just typical Newt. It was how he said it that got the reaction. Newt, who was considered “dead on arrival” by all the expert pundits when he entered the race, is now the hottest muthafucka in the streets since that time Nas dropped his Jay-Z diss track “Ether” back in 2001. Newt’s proving that he’s Stillmatic.

Out the gate, Newt calls the results of Ben Bernanke’s policies “wreckage”. Newt’s right but I love how all these conservatives are loudly applauding Newt’s criticism of the Federal Reserve when he’s just recycling the same talking points Ron Paul has been using for decades. Yet, conservatives still can’t see that Ron Paul IS the solution. Nope, but they’ll continue to jack his policy points and call him crazy.

Some Newt highlights are when he challenges the Occupy Movement by asking if Bill Gates and Henry Ford were a part of the 1% or the 99% when they started out. Point being, the 99% can make something of themselves if they try. The moderators try to “gotcha” Newt a few times but these people are just like the buzzing of flies to him. He treats “gotchas” like steak and devours the fuck out of them! Newt bashes Dodd-Frank and says that if you want the housing to come back, that the economy must come back first.

When his turn comes up on the Obamacare issue, Newt says that it is a state issue and that we need to focus on brain science. He also uses the moment to challenge Obama to a 3 hour Lincoln-Douglas style debate on health care. While that would be great, Obama would never accept the offer because he knows he’d get destroyed like Apollo Creed in “Rocky IV”.

Other Newt Points include him pimping out the Chilean model for social security and letting the world know that college is not a right therefore tuition isn’t free. In the end, Newt just kills it. Like I’ve said again and again, I don’t agree with several of his points but he has the skill and the fire to run the show, more so than anyone else on that stage. However Dr. Paul is still the best all around, which brings me to him.

Ron Paul had his best debate yet; he keeps getting better and better. I hope he keeps gaining steam through January. Truthfully, it was pretty fortunate for him that this debate was strictly economic. It allowed him to hit his economic points without having to defend himself from confused conservatives that don’t “get” his crazy stance on foreign policy.

Ron Paul says that our debt is unsustainable and that we need to liquify it. He says that our current actions are just prolonging our agony and that drastic changes must be made quickly. He calls spending a disease and points out that spending in and of itself is a tax. He promises to work towards eliminating the income tax altogether by cutting a trillion dollars from the budget each year and curing our fiscal idiocy. Paul also promises that he will try to combat price fixing. He says that the market should determine interest rates. He basically gets a “fuck the Fed” in there without actually saying it.

With Obamacare, Ron Paul says that we have to get the government out of medicine. He is the first to bring up medical savings accounts, which gets support from Mitt Romney.

On education, one of the moderators points out that students loan debt is near a trillion dollars and that Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt. She also points out that college seniors have more than $25,000 in debt on average. A video is then played about how tuition rates have increased by 428% since 1990. The moderator then refreshes us on the fact that Ron Paul has said that he wants to get rid of the Department of Education. She then asks, without the DOE, how would he make college more affordable. Ron Paul points out to the idiot moderator that her argument proved that the Department of Education is obviously ineffective and a total failure. Dr. Paul then points out to the moderator that was so sure of her stupid argument, that the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up because of inflation and students are essentially getting ripped off and the burden is falling on the taxpayer. Ron Paul then makes sure that everyone knows, which they already should, that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to be involved in education.

Ron Paul is asked if he thinks that Rick Perry is a crony capitalist. Ron Paul refuses to answer the question and says that people in this country need to understand the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism as many don’t. With that, the debate is over with about ten minutes to spare on the clock.

Luckily for us there were no fights like the last big debate. I mean, that shit was entertaining but in the end, it just took away from the meat and potatoes and made the candidates involved in the bitch and whine fests look like bitches and whiners. This debate just flowed so nice and CNBC did a decent job. Well that is except for including that over-caffeinated freak Jim Cramer. I thought homeboy’s heart was going to explode a few times.

In the end, nothing really changed, everyone looks like they always do. Paul and Newt were on fire, everyone else was typical. Like I said, a couple of these people need to realize that it is time to step the fuck off.

I missed Gary Johnson, as always, but he was tweeting during the debates and in one of his tweets he texted, “I will be proposing a 43 percent reduction in federal spending. 1.5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending.” God I hope so! He just upped the ante on Ron Paul by half a trillion! If they are going to waste our time with Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann then Gary Johnson should at least get some time. Ah well, fuck these debate organizers.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade A: Newt Gingrich
Grade C: Mitt Romney
Grade C-: Herman Cain
Grade D: Michele Bachmann
Grade D-: Jon Huntsman
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Rick Perry
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Written by Rob Rimes.

This debate was by far the most unique one yet. Unique doesn’t mean good however as it was also by far the worst debate. In reality, it wasn’t even a debate it was practically a dick sucking contest between the candidates. I don’t mean that to sound completely disrespectful to them but to have the unique format of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate and to select the two candidates who are nearly identical on policy is just fucking stupid.

Now to be fair, I’m not sure how this came to be and why only Gingrich and Cain were a part of this debate but for the sake of not boring the audience to death, the participants should of at least been at odds with each other somewhat. This just came across like two buddies agreeing with each other’s points and then adding their own two cents on top of it to help sell the idea to the public. I almost feel as if these two are in cahoots and plan on being running mates regardless of which of these two could get the nomination (assuming it won’t be Romney, Perry or Paul).

To start, this debate was poorly put together and it came off like an extremely bad public access talk show. The technical problems were horrendous and inexcusable. The microphones echoed for the first five-to-ten minutes and it took them forever to get that taken care of and when they did, Newt’s mic was then fucked up and spewing white noise which just pissed me off as it reminded me of that super shitty Michael Keaton movie where he got chased by CGI shadows.

They had to actually hand Gingrich a regular mic as they couldn’t get his shirt mic fixed and the replacement one had problems too! Jesus George Jetson Christ C-SPAN, just fire your fucking sound engineer already! Well, maybe it was the sound guy for the Texas Tea Party, I don’t know. Either way, that guy shouldn’t even be working a toll booth on the NAFTA Superhighway! Truth be told, I believe Herman Cain sabotaged Newt’s mic before the debate by sexually harassing it.

This debate was moderated but the moderators sucked ass. One of them was a congressman named Steven King. His name was spelled differently than the legendary writer but he did bring just as much horror. The other moderator’s name wasn’t even worth remembering as he was pretty much non-existent the entire night. Steven King however, forced us to sit through 8 minutes of his boring pro-Paul Ryan speech where he went through a bunch of Paul Ryan-esque slides that made me feel like I was in some shitty middle school economics class. Fuck that dude, just get to the debate.

So after the shitty economics presentation and the mic issues, we FINALLY get into the meat of the debate. Then again, I find myself distracted because now the sound coming out of the television is filled with a loud buzzing noise! Newt’s talking and I can’t pay attention because a thousand invisible bees are swarming around my head trying to turn it into a goddamned hive! Wait.. what did you say Newt? Well, I don’t know but Herman Cain responds to it with, “I completely agree but let me add this..” Fuck that man! That was exactly how the entire night went. It was like the world’s nicest rap battle!

In a nutshell, one guy would answer a question and the other would agree 95% of the time and just add in their talking points to help solidify their opponents argument. I swear to Jesus that these two guys have more mutual man love for one another than Antoine and Blaine from “In Living Color”. It’s as if they have already decided to run together and they are just using this facade of a “debate” to get their platform over to the public on this 90 minute forum that was essentially created by the Texas Tea Party to allow them to do so. This is all a ruse! Albeit a clever clever ruse.

I didn’t learn anything new from this debate because all they did is rehash the exact same talking points they’ve been pounding over our heads throughout all the previous debates. I was a bit disappointed that the subject of the Federal Reserve did not come up because that is one issue where their stances differ.

Newt wants to audit the fucker and Cain is a Fed insider that continually protects and defends the most tyrannical institution this country has ever done business with. I was secretly hoping Newt would call out Cain on it and the debate would’ve evolved into something with more substance. Nope, didn’t happen because it would’ve created a rift between the two debaters that are seemingly unified on the issues. I really want to see a Lincoln-Douglas styled debate featuring Cain and Ron Paul. Lets air some shit out! Fuck this 90 minute Cain-Gingrich 2012 infomercial!

Just for shits and giggles I’ll give you a brief rundown of what these guys were pimping out. Cain is for a loser pays law to help eliminate the high cost of health care. Both men support the Paul Ryan plan. Newt served Bill Gates’ dad. Both men are for optional personal retirement plans for youngsters who are being raped by Social Security, which they will never get. Cain mentions the 999 Plan, Newt says he won’t acknowledge it this debate. Newt supports the Green Bay Packers. Newt also just nails it every time he’s got the mic. It is worth noting that towards the end Newt got a pretty big standing O. The crowd was digging Gingrich.

The most memorable thing though, was when Cain asked Gingrich a question which basically implied that Newt was going to be the VP under POTUS Cain. The crowd laughed and Cain proved that he was the funnier of the two but America needs the best leader, not the funniest candidate.

I wish I could give you more analysis but as I said, they just recycled everything we’ve all already heard a dozen times. The moderation sucked because these three-to-five minute answers were just drawn out, boring and wasted too much time. We spent a half hour on an issue that should’ve only taken five-to-ten minutes. This debate style kind of sucks and I understand why it is archaic and no longer used. Then again, maybe it would’ve worked better if the candidates featured weren’t butt buddies. Who knows? In the end, I wasted 90 minutes of my life. At this point, I should’ve just known that it was going to be an ass parade.

I can only pray that if they ever do another 1-on-1 debate that they pick Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and shove those two hair models into the octagon. Wishful thinking I guess but damn it this is America and I want to see some blood!

Grading Scale:
Grade C: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Herman Cain
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Jon Huntsman
Grade I: Gary Johnson

Here’s my favorite clip from the debate:

Capitalism: it is a word that for some means freedom, prosperity and the answer to all of our economic woes. To others, probably most in the media and in the Capital Beltway, it is a dirty word. See, capitalism is one of the most misunderstood words in the English language. We can blame sloppy cuntpickles like Michael Moore and Karl Marx for pimping their bullshit view of it to the feeble masses. Granted, it is also those feeble masses that grasp onto that skewed misrepresentation of capitalism without fact checking and looking into it for themselves. People, especially liberals and college aged hipster-hippie hybrids, view capitalism as the supreme force of oppression in the world.

Via TheSwash.com

*Taken from Pajamas Media.

As progressives nationwide jump on board the Occupy Wall Street bandwagon, I visited the San Antonio “Occupy Wall Street” Facebook page to see what was going on in Texas. One of their commenters had posted a list of “11 Things the Wealthiest Americans Could Buy for the U.S.” MoveOn.org has a copy of the same poster as seen here.

The list was produced by United for a Fair Economy (UFE). One of their main projects is called “Responsible Wealth,” co-founded in 1997 by Bill “Planned Parenthood” Gates, Sr. They are self described as “advocates for economic justice” with “membership (is) open to those in the top five percent of U.S. income earners and asset holders…” The page also quoted Bill Gates, Sr.:

American society has made it possible for [wealthy] individuals to have an elegant life, first class education, and virtually unlimited options about where to go and what to do. Society does have a just claim on these fortunes, and it goes by the name of the Estate Tax.

You may remember some of the big players involved at the time, as they proudly shared the headlines of the day in their April 2001 newsletter:

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Politico.

Microsoft asked European regulators Thursday to go after Google on antitrust grounds, accusing the search giant of trying to “entrench its dominance” on the Web.

It’s a major escalation in the war between the two tech titans.

Microsoft and other Google foes say Google’s powerful search engine and its move into other markets — from advertising to mobile phones to travel — has stunted industrywide competition. Google has described itself as under siege — the victim of a Microsoft-led “anti-Google industrial complex.”

In an early-morning blog post Thursday, Microsoft executive Brad Smith said the company’s European Commission filing accuses Google of having “engaged in a broadening pattern of walling off access to content and data that competitors need to provide search results to consumers and to attract advertisers.”

Smith offered a litany of examples of what he describes as Google’s anticompetitive practices — arguing, for instance, that Google has disadvantaged competitors in video search, promoted its search boxes through exclusivity deals and sought to leverage its size over competitors in the neophyte e-book market.

“We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate. But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives,” Smith said. “That’s what it’s doing now. And that’s what we hope European officials will assess and ultimately decide to stop.”

“We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants,” Google officials said in a statement. “For our part, we continue to discuss the case with the European Commission and we’re happy to explain to anyone how our business works.”

The complaint filed with European Union regulators, the first time Microsoft has formally alleged antitrust violations by a competitor, comes as Google is under increased scrutiny back home — from the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and among state attorneys general.

Last week, a federal judge validated some of the claims of Google antitrust critics by blocking the company’s plans to create a universal digital library, partly because those plans would preclude competitors from doing so. DOJ has spent months scrutinizing how Google’s $700 million purchase of travel software firm ITA would affect the online travel market.

Texas last year launched a broader investigation into whether Google manipulates its search results to hurt competitors.

On Wednesday, the FTC announced a settlement with Google over the launch of the company’s Buzz social network. Under the settlement, Google will have to submit to outside monitoring of its privacy policies over the next two decades.

Now the fight intensifies in Europe, where regulators since late 2010 have eyed Google for potential threats to industry competition.

A number of small but notable players have weighed into that battle, but Microsoft’s new filing is likely to add an even more heightened level of intensity to the European Commission’s antitrust investigation — the first of any sort targeting Google internationally.

In his 1,500-plus-word blog post describing Microsoft’s concerns, Smith directly challenged Google’s common retort to critics: that consumers are “a click away” from using a different search engine if Google disappoints. There are numerous other ways, Smith argued, that Google can entrench its dominance in both search and search advertising.

“Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete,” Smith wrote.

“Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites,” Smith continued. “Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.”

According to Smith, Google maintains a 95 percent share of the European market — and, as a result, has immense leverage over search and advertising. Even efforts in Washington to check Google’s growth have failed to stop “the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States,” Smith wrote, noting the marketplace is “worse” in Europe because Microsoft in the United States “serves one quarter” of searches through both Bing, its network and its partnership with Yahoo!

Smith said there are several ways in which Microsoft believes Google is impeding competition — from degrading access to YouTube for Bing and Windows Phones, to making it difficult and expensive for companies to format their advertising campaigns on Google to Bing and other search advertising platforms.

Other instances of unfair play by Google, Smith added, include search bias, or the manipulation of search algorithms so that competing sites rank lower. He also charged that Google uses exclusivity agreements to ensure that popular European websites use only Google-powered search boxes.

Microsoft also took aim at the Google Books settlement, recently nixed in federal court, charging that it threatened to lock out competitors from the e-book industry. Moreover, the Redmond giant alleged Google “discriminates against would-be competitors by making it more costly for them to attain prominent placement for their advertisements” — an argument similar to criticism levied by opponents to the merger of Google and travel-software company ITA.

The remarkable turnabout for Microsoft — from antitrust poster child to antitrust complainer — was not lost on the company.

“Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly,” Smith wrote. “This is the first time Microsoft Corp. has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.”

*Written by Rob Rimes.

“A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler.” - Ludwig von Mises

Capitalism: it is a word that for some means freedom, prosperity and the answer to all of our economic woes. To others, probably most in the media and in the Capital Beltway, it is a dirty word. See, capitalism is one of the most misunderstood words in the English language. We can blame sloppy cuntpickles like Michael Moore and Karl Marx for pimping their bullshit view of it to the feeble masses. Granted, it is also those feeble masses that grasp onto that skewed misrepresentation of capitalism without fact checking and looking into it for themselves. People, especially liberals and college aged hipster-hippie hybrids, view capitalism as the supreme force of oppression in the world. They are so sure of their position and any friendly debate on the subject is usually met with hatred and anger backed by the blind faith in their own idiotic stance. Their theory and understanding of capitalism is similar to Swiss cheese, as it is full of holes. It doesn’t matter to these pro-socialist “moral pillars of strength” what the real facts are. Truth be told, I know I am writing this pretty much in vain, as those who agree with me don’t need a refresher course in reality and those who sit on the other side of the fence don’t really care about what lies on this side because this side is full of evil minions to the money devils who feed on the blood and sweat from the less-fortunate working class people of the world. But fuck it, I’m writing this anyway.

1. An Introduction:

Capitalism, quite simply is complete freedom. It is freedom to do what you want and to use your skills or your sweat to try and prosper and make a living for yourself. It is a flawless and perfect system, contrary to what people think they know to be true. Truth is, in a capitalist system, everybody has a fair shot at being the winner. I know the libsnots reading this are laughing right now, just waiting for me to further prove my insanity. Well, my stance is not insane, in fact, when you look at it realistically and understand the true essence of capitalism and all other isms, you may become enlightened.

See, we have never really had true capitalism in this country. Well, at least not for the last 100 years. What we have had for a century or more is a system where capitalism is in constant combat with socialism, progressivism and big government regulation. We do not live in a capitalistic nation, as much as that pains me to say. What we live in is an oligopoly. You could just call it a clusterfuckistic system but oligopoly seems to fit when one looks at the fact that this country is made up of a cluster of monopolistic corporations that only exist, in the way that they do, through big government meddling. The big government meddling is what destroys the capitalist state. It is that meddling that gives capitalism a bad name.

People, typically of the left, do not seem to be able to make the correlation between crony capitalism and capitalism. Crony capitalism is not really capitalism it is what happens when government implements regulations, restrictions, subsidies, tariffs and any other thing that they do to tweak the system. Essentially, the government picks the winners and the losers in a classic case of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. When the government picks the winners and the losers the free market is eliminated, freedom is snuffed out and capitalism crumbles. Capitalism IS freedom. Capitalism IS the free market. The meddling stifles capitalism. Point blank fucking PERIOD.

When the shitnipple maroons call for “social justice” they do not understand what exactly it is they are calling for. Social justice is a pipe dream, it is something that does not and cannot ever truly exist. It is the bookish lib’s answer to the monstrosity that is capitalism. If only that bookish lib actually picked up a book that wasn’t on their professor’s required reading list. If that happened, they could potentially learn the error of their misguided ways. Then again, they don’t want to.

Most arguments against capitalism are born out of the inability to understand the difference between true capitalism and government-regulated capitalism. One argument is that capitalism creates a divide between the rich and the poor. Another argument is that capitalism keeps the rich in power: forever. It is also believed that capitalism is oppressive and that it exploits the less fortunate. It has been blamed as the destroyer of communities, the essence of greed and the evil empire that devours mom and pop only to shit out mega-super-uber-stores on every corner in America. It destroys the environment. It is looked at as a global epidemic that forces its way into international markets to create Americanized slaves that fiend for Big Macs, Marlboros, Centrum Silver and Levi’s 501 jeans. God forbid capitalism and its intrusion into foreign societies! How dare they make the Chinese buy Adidas deodorant and Coach bags! What’s next, the Chinese themselves turning away from their communist system and embracing capitalism? Um..yes! As they champion in capitalism, we seem to be championing in socialism. It’s a sad ass state of fucking affairs y’all! Maybe China is where I will live in the future. I need to remember to order the Mandarin set from Rosetta Stone when I get home tonight.

2. The Unholy Creator of Class Warfare:

Leaving the China point for now, I want to focus on one of the arguments against capitalism. That argument is that capitalism divides the classes: making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer while the middle class ceases to be. This argument is bullshit, here’s why.

The first question I pose is a common one when discussing the subject of capitalism and poverty. The question is this: have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Now while that can be foolishly debated, the general answer is “no”. If it weren’t for rich people and the opportunities they provide, due to their own successes, most people would be in a position much worse than they are now. Capitalism creates prosperity all the way down the line. If government stifles capitalism, the opportunity for prosperity all the way down the line is also stifled. The economics of capitalism are really just plain fucking common sense. There are no magic tricks or smoke and mirrors here. Criss Angel is pulling no strings.

Apart from working for someone, the reality is that, under capitalism, no poor man is prevented or prohibited from creating his own fortune and his own prosperity. Let’s jump into the DeLorean, fire up the Flux Capacitor, and go way back to a time when capitalism existed in the United States in a much purer form than it does today.

In the latter half of the 1800′s, droves upon droves of people came to this country for the opportunity to prosper in a truly free society. In the 1800′s, government meddling in the affairs of economics and the free market was damn near non-existent compared to modern times. Thanks to the government keeping their hands off of business and industry, the Industrial Revolution was born and millions of immigrants became successes and lived out their individual American Dreams. America became a great nation, if not the best nation in the world. American Exceptionalism was the reality of the day.

You see, millions of non-English speaking immigrants crashed our shores, set up shop and within a generation, many if not most, became huge success stories. People that could be no more than farmhands, servants, shepherds or cobblers became doctors, lawyers, businessmen, inventors, scientists and tycoons. Capitalism brought these people out of their meager existence and provided them with a platform to become whatever they wanted to become. Within a generation, these immigrants were among America’s elite! Because of this, more people flocked to America and the world’s most talented and most skilled became true Americans citizens that contributed to our rise as the beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world. Capitalism gave birth to the greatest nation on Earth.

The pro-socialist front is completely inept to the reality of capitalism. They would rather live under a system where the government “redistributes the wealth” and provides nationalized health care. Let me ask another question: who is better off, the guy who is provided for by the state, who eats, sleeps and breathes regulated and rationed welfare or the guy who busted his ass, persevered amongst the competition and got a job working for Apple, Citigroup, Verizon, Conoco-Phillips, Bank of America, General Electric or AOL/Time-Warner? That guy is the guy who can stand on his own two feet and provide for his own?

To quote a line from the article “Capitalism and Poverty” published on Capitalism.org, who would people rather be under:

“A Mother Teresa who hands them bowls of slop every day, so they can barely exist — or a genius like Bill Gates who creates a fortune for himself by helping others to create fortunes for themselves, i.e., “where the first feeds them for a day, the second helps them feed themselves.” Observe that it is the Bill Gates of the world who are not allowed to exist in India — and the Mother Teresas who are.”

I think the answer here is obvious, but that brings me to another argument. That being the fallacious argument that corporations are inherently evil and that they crush the backs of the little people by exploiting their skills and labor: selling products and services saturated with the blood and sweat of the non-rich. Yawn.

3. The Sinister Seed of Evil Corporations:

First of all, corporations are generally looked at as profit-driven monsters out to devour the common man and rip his soul to fucking shreds. People fail to realize that corporations, in their simplest form, are groups of individuals. Corporations are people too. In fact, corporations employ most people, especially in the United States. If the corporation who provides you with a paycheck is “evil” then get off of your damn ass, go out and get another job: simple as that. Or try to be the hero and destroy the phantom beast from within, but good luck with that approach homie.

See, contrary to popular bullshit, people are not at the mercy of the corporation or their employers. The fact is, in a free market system, people have the freedom to choose their own way. One can argue that a single mother with six kids is locked in her job and can’t quit and that the employer who knows this is going to push her against the wall, day in and day out. While the employer may be a retched douchebag, the woman has the choice to stay there or not to stay there. In contrast to the capitalistic system, in a socialist or communist society the woman would not have the freedom to make that choice. Her position in life would have been chosen for her and there would be no escape from it, other than to flee her country, probably illegally and short of death, in an attempt to make her way to America. I mean really folks, which system perpetuates more abuse?

The truth is that corporations provide countless opportunities for people all over the world. Corporations are the creators of jobs and the supplier of nearly all the world’s currency to the common man. Without corporations, many people would starve. I’m not talking about the amount of starving people we have now, I am talking the possibility of global famine.

Without the opportunities provided by corporations, billions of people would be out of work. Granted, they could go into business for themselves but the dog-eat-dog atmosphere on the global scale would be monolithic. In the end, even in this fantasy scenario, corporations would just rise anyway; it is fucking inevitable. Besides that, the level of just general innovation and progress in the world would be slowed down tremendously. People couldn’t create on a large scale, in the same way, without the corporate entity.

At their core, corporations are a voluntary collection of organized labor and innovation, taking the risk in a shared endeavor. Corporations pull together the resources for a common goal to achieve profit. When it comes to the sheer number of the people that are a part of this voluntary collection, just keep in mind that the top 10 Fortune 500 companies alone employ over 5 million workers. That’s not counting the other 490 companies!

Now, I am not trying to paint all corporations as fucking saints here, let’s be realistic. There are those corporations who do exploit the worker and the common man. However, going back to the issue about government meddling, one can see that it is that factor that allows certain corporations to get away with such activity. It is the crony capitalism that creates these heinous scenarios and because of that, it is crony capitalism that needs to be exposed for what it is. If the markets and trade were truly free, corporations who used these sorts of tactics to fatten their bottom line would quickly fall to a more ethical competitor. Regulation of business and trade, as stated before, picks the winners and losers. When the winner is locked into the top spot, with competition eliminated and politicians turning a blind eye, they are able to run rampant and literally get away with murder. Under a pure capitalistic system, this could not be.

What also must be understood is that corporations don’t do bad things, people do. Once you look at the fact that corporations are a collective of individuals working together towards a common goal, you can better understand that, like with all groups, there are usually a few bad apples. However, for every bad apple, there are several other people within a company who are ethical and who want to prosper and use their goods or services to better the world. Yes, it is about profit at the end of the day, but to create profit one has to create a good or service that is in demand by the consumer. The most successful and important products are the ones that change the world and redefine our lives.

In regards to the bad apples, those are the people we usually hear about on the news. They are able to get away with what they do because of government management and regulation of the system. The ladder climbing dickbags who take the shortcuts and trade favors do so because of our polluted political system. When our eye is off the ball in Washington and our leaders pull off their infamous backroom deals, another example of crony capitalism is born. If “we the people” aren’t responsible and informed enough to hold our representatives accountable, then how can we be sure that they are doing the right thing for our country economically? How can we be sure that they aren’t working out a deal that will benefit their district, even though it may seem noble, that will somehow leave others negatively affected by a seemingly minor regulation that has hatched some sort of unintended consequence? It happens everyday in America.

4. The Apocalyptic Harbinger of Monopolistic Doom:

Moving on to another argument, I want to dispel the myth that capitalism creates monopolies. Just like every other argument thus far, the growth of corporations into monopolies would be damn near impossible if it weren’t for regulation by the federal government. The free market is a natural remedy to the problem of monopolies, let alone the oligopolies that run the world out in the open and behind the scenes. When you look at the sources of nearly every monopoly, you find that it has become what it is through government intervention.

Super-Economist Milton Friedman, the man behind the series “Free To Choose”, asked a student years ago, that if he could pass just one law that would limit the growth of monopolies, what would that law be. The student, after some thought, proposed that the government should limit the size of the market that companies can offer their goods or services to. You see, when you break down what this student said, you can see that his method is simply about leveling the playing field. It is creating “fairness” and thus, limiting the success of the companies who have bested their competition. Most companies would fall under the weight of this proposal and those that survived would not be allowed to grow and in turn could not hire new employees as they expanded. Eventually, we would get to where there is only one company left standing and just by default, that company, by itself, would be a monopoly.

Milton Friedman didn’t go that deep with the student in breaking down his one magic law, but what he did was rebuttal with a suggestion. What Mr. Friedman suggested was that the answer to eliminating the monopoly/oligopoly problem was free trade. He continued with:

“Eliminate all tariffs and all restrictions on foreign trade and you enable the world to come in as competition to prevent domestic monopoly.”

Sounds pretty easy, right? Too bad the government can’t keep their hands off.

It is similar tactics that created and prolonged the Great Depression as well as our country’s current economic recession. The meddling is troublesome and destructive. Chaos is born out of anything that the government has tried to control. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, so why should it be any different when they try to tinker and tweak the capitalistic system?

5. The Hate-Mongering Cultural Destroyer:

The next argument is the one that claims that capitalism has poisoned the world by forcibly Americanizing and destroying the cultures of foreign lands. This is one of those senseless and idiotic assertions that make me want to headbutt anti-capitalists in the fucking teeth.

So is there some invisible gun being held to the heads of all the people around the world who are dying to get American products, as well as wanting to experience American pop culture? Only if there is an invisible gun forcing Americans to watch Anime and buy Hello Kitty panties. Common sense shatters this half-assed myth. The point is American culture captivates people, especially those who don’t experience it on the level that we do in the United States.

Realistically, we are all probably so desensitized to everything and most of our cultural awesomeness is taken for granted and considered just common experiences. To rectify our cultural desensitization, many Americans watch Asian cinema and French films. Many buy toys, trinkets and other interesting foreign goods because it is different and unique: an escape from the norm. This works both ways. The cool thing about it is our cultural exchange brings all of us closer together and helps us understand one another on a more intimate level. It is no wonder why the party-pooping shitcocks want to piss on our parade. God forbid we don’t live in fear of one another. God forbid we find commonality and like-interests.

While the government in Iran bitches about the Americanization of their youth, Glenn Beck is balling his eyes out over the Chinese toys in Happy Meal boxes. You can’t force cultural nationalism. That useless and bullshit tactic is quickly becoming a thing of the past and those who don’t go with the flow of the river are just going to be smashed on the rocks.

6. The Sadistic Rapist of the Consumer:

Another stupid fucking argument against capitalism is that by allowing companies to run free without regulation, those companies will take advantage of the consumer. That sounds logical, I have to admit, but when one observes and understands the machinations of federal regulation, common sense takes over and shatters that crackpot myth. Keeping this as simple as possible, let me break it down.

When the government regulates a business, that business’ profits are negatively affected. A regulation, whether it is a limit on their reach as a producer or a tax or tariff on their goods, shrinks a company’s bottom line. If the bottom line is shrunk enough, the company has to lay off their employees and often times has to shut their doors. If they want to remain competitive, they simply can’t. So for a company to survive under these circumstances, it has to pass the cost of these various regulations on to the consumer.

For example, a Mace Windu lightsaber for your kid that was once $20 is now $30 because of corporate tax hikes on the plastic company that makes the shell of the lightsaber. Also, new safety regulations were implemented on the electronics company that makes the lightsaber light up while having cool sound effects. That’s not all; the factory that prints the boxes for the lightsaber was affected by the rising cost of ink, due to the ink company’s attempt at surviving environmental regulations. The company that distributes the toy from the factory to the store is affected by the rising gas prices due to new regulations on petroleum as well as payroll increases do to union meddling. The store then has to compensate at the end of the line due to new local taxes it has to pay on its property. This seems like a crazy scenario but this is what is happening to businesses all over.

In a capitalist system without these regulations, the lightsaber would still be $20. Hell, it would probably be a lot cheaper. The fact of the matter is, once again, that crony capitalism and regulation are to blame here, not capitalism itself! Is the common sense aspect of how capitalism works starting to sink into your skull yet?

7. The Savage Rip-off Artist:

Another area where capitalism takes a lot of shit is in regards to prices. People often bitch about the price of things and blame capitalism as the greedy beast behind what these people feel are goods and services that are too expensive. Apparently these people don’t realize that they don’t have to buy a goddamned thing that they don’t want to: well except for health insurance, thanks to fucking Obamacare. Realistically though, what you buy is your choice. There are plenty of choices and alternatives out there.

The fact that people have freedom of choice doesn’t seem to concern the government however. Just like with everything else, the federal government thinks that they have the authority and right to meddle with the system. In this case, the government directly sets limits and regulations on prices! To some of you bleeding heart pissants, this may sound great. However, those of us with a sense of reality can clearly see how this is fucking horrendous. For those confused, let me explain why.

I’m going to use the example of rent control because I recently read Robert P. Murphy’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism” and he made a great point with it. Also, it is an example that hits home: literally.

See, with rent control, the government is essentially capping the price a landlord can charge for a particular unit in his building. This is, of course, done so that poor people can have “affordable housing”. Like with every socialist program, to the unenlightened it seems noble but in reality, it is a gigantic clusterfuck of unintended consequences.

What rent control really does is it provides less housing for people, not to mention turning the existing housing into slums. The reason being that if the government comes in and says that Unit A which is priced at $500 now has to be priced at $100, more people are either going to buy up more units or the landlord is going to rent out less, as the government regulation has just eliminated the opportunity for profit. In essence, a housing shortage has just been created. Try explaining this logic to progressives.

In fact, if the landlord does rent the units out, his very small profit margin makes it difficult for him to be able to maintain the property. So if a dishwasher breaks, a leak destroys a ceiling or the heater needs repair, chances are, it is less likely to be taken care of by a landlord with little to no money. Thus, the slumlord is born.

So when a property developer shows up in your town to make a multi-million dollar high-rise apartment complex, the developer is doing this to make as much profit as he can: that’s Business 101. Now, is this developer going to build in the area where there is government regulated rent control or is he going to build where he has the freedom to charge what he wants? You see, under this example, rent control programs disable a town from being able to effectively manage their long-term growth. Basically, the growing population is stuck in the same shitty rundown apartments that the city has been controlling for years.

Rent control takes houses off the market and prevents new ones from being erected. This is just one example of government intervention in price control but it doesn’t take much to see how to apply this to other areas.

8. The Egomaniacal Environmental Enemy:

Capitalism also catches a bad and misunderstood rap when it comes to how it affects the environment. Lefty Greenpants wants you to believe that the evil corporations spawned from the satanic womb of capitalism are polluting our oceans, smogging our skys and creating the mythical creature known as “man made global warming”.

Man, why are hippies still around? They are pretty much a useless and whiny sect of society apart from just living in the past and looking for their new Vietnam to protest, which they’ve found in the green movement that is relentlessly pushing for eco-fascism. So anyway, sorry for the previous run-on sentence. Moving ahead, let me use my magic to dispel this bullshit liberal talking point.

If capitalism does anything, it helps the overall health of the environment. Yes, I wrote it. Hell, I’ll write it again. If capitalism does anything, it helps the overall health of the environment. There, has it sunk in? No, probably not.

The real problem is that government meddling, as with all things, makes this particular situation worse. You see, the environmental practices in a socialist or communist society are much worse than they are in a capitalist society. One has to look no further than the tragedy at Chernobyl. The nuclear reactor accident that took the lives of dozens of people and still leaves the area radiated 25 years later, could have been prevented in a capitalist society. It was the government controlled communist regime that allowed the nuclear power plant to fall into ruin. Do you think this would have happened had the power plant been privately owned? The short answer: fuck no!

Now clueless lefties may want to counter with the Three Mile Island scare in the United States but in reality, it was just a scare. Public outcry and their overblown reaction were really due to the fact that the film ‘The China Syndrome’ was released less than two weeks earlier. That film, its premise being about meltdown at a nuclear reactor, came out during the big boom of Hollywood disaster films. This was the primary cause of the hysteria that surrounds the incident even to this day.

When the subject is recycling, capitalism also outshines government regulations on that. The fact is, government and Lefty Greenpants did not invent recycling: capitalism did. For decades, if not centuries, capitalism has recycled and reused countless products and resources in an order to maximize their profits and eliminate senseless waste. Whether those products or resources are plastic, steel, cardboard, aluminum, etc.

The way government screws it up is that they enforce environmental regulations that force companies to recycle nearly everything. By trying to eliminate waste the government is creating more waste. How so?

Under regulation, companies are forced to make changes to the way they run things. They now have to transport, or pay someone to transport materials to a facility to be recycled. In some cases, they have to build and maintain their own facilities to handle the recycling of resources. These practices cost money, time and negatively impact profit. Also, the transportation of goods causes pollution, as does the new methods of recycling. It is an example of how trying to fix a problem, which isn’t even a problem mind you, only makes the problem much worse for everyone. The government invents new problems while killing jobs in the process.

Private corporations are well aware of which materials are beneficial to recycle and which aren’t. The government is just working for lobbyists with an uninformed or blatantly wrong agenda. There are times when producing new goods and materials are cheaper and more beneficial than having to recycle them. The corporations are going to do what is best to maximize their profits. Capitalism in and of itself is anti-waste. Let them make the best decisions for their company and stay the fuck out of the way.

9. The Devilish Promoter of Greed:

It is often said that capitalism is the promoter of greed. Do I need to refer to Gordon Gekko’s Oscar-winning “greed is good” speech from the amazing 1987 film ‘Wall Street’? No? Well, to this argument I say, “so fucking what?” Is greed really a bad thing? Sure, greed can lead people down a road of doing underhanded and shitty things in an effort to make more money, but this goes back to my long section on corporations and individuals.

The point is, is that greed has created much more than it has destroyed. That’s the reality that your liberal professors don’t want you to know. Greed has fathered more innovation and more progress than any other conceivable factor one can come up with. To argue against this is fucking ludicrous and completely and utterly pointless. Without greed, we’d all still be cave dwellers chewing on bark!

Throughout history, whenever a scientist or an inventor said that they were trying to better mankind and the world, I’m sure they were telling the truth. However, it was the fattening of their wallet that gave them that motivation. Whether it was greed for money, fame, success or just general notoriety, doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that greed was the catalyst.

Why do you get up every morning? You get up to make money. It doesn’t matter if you desire to make money for yourself, your family or to buy a nicer car. The point is: money is your motivator. To deny that fact is just ignorant and pretty fucking arrogant, especially, when each and every one of us would be happy to receive more money.

Now some of you may feel like you have enough and are fine with what you’ve got. That’s admirable, a bit lame and borderline moronic, but admirable. Anyway, are you telling me that you wouldn’t take more money? It isn’t something you necessarily have to use on yourself but if you’re the charitable type, which I personally feel should be everyone, isn’t there a lot you could do with that money? I’m posing this question without implying what the source of the money could be, just assume in this example that it is legit and clean money. Wouldn’t you use it for something positive?

See, I understand the guy who doesn’t want to take money from a shady source or cash that came from some sort of criminal activity. There is nothing wrong with putting morals before prosperity for some people and I respect that, as I too wouldn’t take a couple grand from a hypothetical drug dealer to use on whatever I saw fit. However, as far as earning an honest living and doing what it takes to maximize your profits, that is what makes the world go ‘round kiddos. Greed is the creator: love it or hate it. As Junior M.A.F.I.A. said back in ‘95, “Get Money!”

10. In Conclusion:

There are many more subjects I could tackle in regards to capitalism and the anti-capitalistic mentality but this article has already surpassed epic proportions. As I am confronted with other issues and examples I will continue to write on the subject. The first sentence in this article was: Capitalism: it is a word that for some means freedom, prosperity and the answer to all of our economic woes. Hopefully now, you understand and see why.

Take what was written here if you must and go do your own research. If you approach the subject objectively and honestly, your doubts and fears about capitalism will be greatly diminished. However, if you want to be a jackass twatbag, keep believing the lies of your coffee shop heroes and your unionized teachers. Point blank: capitalism is butter baby!

“Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.” – Ayn Rand