well, the truth is that something like 30% of them actually are anti-semites. they happen to be right on this point, but you can see it in their body language and it's very disturbing to be around them. 30% of the nazi program was textbook socialism.

it sounds to me like netanyahu is using it to raise campaign funds.

deathtokoalas
i think she may be exaggerating the importance and reverberation of the civil disobedience, but this is otherwise worth watching.

Jovan Mitrić
So why USA didn't topple The Saudi Government already? Oh, that's right, oil!

9/11 Nuclear Demolition
Wouldn't that be a reason to invade Saudia Arabia? ;)

Jovan Mitrić
Why, the oil flows just fine.

9/11 Nuclear Demolition
and it flows just fine from Iran, Chile, Venezuela and Libya as well, but it's not about the 'oil' but rather who is in charge of profiting from the oil and therefore who controls it, no? Saudi Arabia (and therefore Israel) have the US by the balls and the cartel works just fine this way. Iran, Chile, Venezuela (and formerly Iraq but look what happened to them) don't sell through the cartels the way that oligarchs want them to, etc so. The oil still 'flows' from Iraq like it has the past 100 years. Only difference is cui bono?

John Doe
...which was the reason to invade Iraq.

Not so much to gain access to Iraqi oil but to make sure the Saudi oil keeps flowing which in turn keeps oil prices stable.

shirehorse91
Your comment makes no sense. Oil is the reason that countries are invaded and oil is the reason that countries aren't invaded.

Jovan Mitrić
Countries with oil that are friendly with USA are not invaded while "rogue" countries with oil are invaded.

deathtokoalas
SAUDI ARABIA WAS INVADED BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1991 AND REMAINS UNDER AMERICAN MILITARY OCCUPATION. THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY IS A FIEFDOM OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE. THEIR ACTIONS REFLECT AMERICAN POLICY IN THE REGION.

the reason they're not toppled is that they're obedient puppets that do what they're told.

should they become a problem, the american occupation will carry out it's raison d'etre and bomb the place to bits. that hasn't happened yet, and if that shocks you it's america that you don't understand properly.

9/11 Nuclear Demolition
thank you.

Jim Jones
Nope there are too many crazy Islamists there and if we bomb them that will free all the crazies onto the world!

deathtokoalas
oil is small beans compared to weapons. america is primarily a weapons manufacturer. it only requires oil insofar as it fuels the arms trade. the entire structure of american foreign policy (and domestic policy) exists to maximize profit from arms sales. it's the war economy, stupid. as such, america seeks disorder and chaos and abhors anything that threatens a future of structural peace.

letting those "crazies" out, who are mostly american allies and puppets anyways, is exactly what they want.

the saudis will eventually be bombed. understand this. right now, it's far more profitable to sell them weapons, and then help generate conflicts that generate further contracts.

Batman
no bud its not the muslims who are crazy its not them who are illegally invading nations and killing innocent people its zionist israel and its muppet usa who are doing that and by the way isis is mossad its zionist jews impersonating muslims they are the real terrorists

deathtokoalas
this is of course just a lot of nonsense. but it's easier to dredge up medieval scapegoating than it is to look at facts and evidence.

this doesn't happen unless the ruling party is admitting defeat.

i don't like the new liberal party, though. i'm hoping the vote splits enough to keep them in minority long enough that mulcair gets replaced by somebody further to his left.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-dimitri-soudas-s-last-days-atop-the-conservative-party-1.2593195

deathtokoalas
or maybe we all need to pull our heads out of our asses and learn how to independently research candidates. if our populace was educated, this wouldn't matter.

step 1: turn your tv off. just turn it off. smash it with a sledgehammer. just get rid of it.

VoxynOfCeadus
Everyone you get to vote for is a winner of the contributions war. Pay attention all you want to who you vote for, it doesn't change the fact that one of them will win and the only reason you get to vote for them is because they got enough contributions to pay for their spot. So naive. Turn off the tv, burn the newspaper, don't use the internet. Who are you going to vote for? The people on the ballots. How did they get on the ballots? They paid to be on the ballots with contributions. John Doe could be the most brilliant person to ever live with plans to lead the country to utopia. But if he's not friends with the corporations and other major lobbyists, he will never be on the ballot. You don't get to vote on that.

deathtokoalas
you need to use the internet. it's not like those other types of media.

you're exaggerating. but, if you weren't, you could write candidates in. the situation you're describing is a consequence of voter ignorance and will not be solved by limiting campaign contributions. not only is it a non-problem, the non-solution will not be effective.

the only solution is a more engaged populace.

VoxynOfCeadus
It will level the playing field and allow for a more engaged populace. It will make this rigged system become so obvious that they have to give us real options. As it is, there are no options for real candidates.

deathtokoalas
these rulings are more about eliminating "market restrictions" in corporations competing with each other. we don't need a "level playing field". that's fascistic thinking, that reduces people to automatons that can be programmed by media.

"it's not fair! only the big corporations get to brainwash people!"

no. a free society is one where people act independently of media, not one where your preferred media brainwashing is dominant.

in canada, we have actually banned corporate donations entirely and it hasn't made any difference. people still vote for the petro-state. if anything, it's made things worse by facilitating the flow of money through back room channels. where we used to have two of three parties that supported nationalization of the oil industry, we now have three parties invested in the petrostate. the reason is people care more about low oil prices than they do about climate change. it's rooted in engagement...