The Brijuni transcripts: Who leaked them?

gentleangler80 said:Look, you're missing the point here—this whole mindset is just a leftover relic from socialist times. Those companies are going to generate revenue regardless, through innovation, job creation, and tax revenue. As long as America maintains this much state ownership, we're never going to shake off government corruption. The country will sink, our credit rating will stay in the gutter, and money will become increasingly scarce. This stuff doesn't happen by accident—capital always finds a way. America needs to cap state-owned assets at maybe 2-3% of the total.

😁 such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer, AT&T 👏 👏 👏 or even the major banks 🕺

Either embrace the inevitable gloom or perish alongside your principles, unable to secure a decent education while clinging to your faith in God.

The American people will ultimately foot the bill for all of it.

gentleangler80—what cloud are you drifting in?
Can you actually cite the claims made by those White House bodyguards
that you previously invoked as witnesses?

Jerry Williams53 said:Anti-fascists aren't communists.
Some were...
Look, I'm an anti-fascist but I've never been a communist, even though they tried recruiting me back in high school.
It's just wrong to generalize like that...

If we’re talking about the so-called antifascists operating within the territory of the former America during WWII, then we are effectively talking about communists. Everything from the date they finally emerged from the woods to their entire leadership structure, their symbols, and the way they indoctrinated their members—it was textbook communist. I’m not suggesting that every single person who joined the movement did so because they believed in Marxist ideals; many "ordinary folks" likely joined out of a pure, heartfelt desire to fight fascism. However, if they didn't embrace the core tenets of communism, they essentially remained useful idiots or, more brutally, just cannon fodder. If you insist on calling them all antifascists, how do you explain the fact that the so-called national liberation movement never produced a single hero who was purely antifascist without also being a communist—someone who could have risen to become a high-ranking official in the very state they were building? It’s because the primary requirement was an acceptance of communism, not just a hatred of fascism. Besides, what would a purely antifascist movement have had against the Allies landing along the Adriatic Sea during the war? Well, Josip Broz Marshall certainly did. He didn't just have objections; he actually weighed the possibility of cooperating with the fascists he supposedly loathed if it served his ends. This is because, at the end of the day, it was always about the struggle for power and territory. Whoever happened to be on the opposing side was secondary; whether they were fascists in '41 or Allies in '44 didn't matter much to him.

Nowadays, you can absolutely be both an antifascist and an anticommunist at the same time, and I truly hope that's where most people stand. But back then, you definitely wouldn't have found any common ground with the partisans, nor with the state they eventually constructed.

Jerry Robinson56 said:😁 such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer, AT&T 👏 👏 👏 or even the major banks 🕺

Either embrace the inevitable gloom or perish alongside your principles, unable to secure a decent education while clinging to your faith in God.

The American people will ultimately foot the bill for all of it.

gentleangler80—what cloud are you drifting in?
Can you actually cite the claims made by those White House bodyguards
that you previously invoked as witnesses?

So, looking back at that 2002 privatization law for ExxonMobil—it was pretty clear what the game plan was. The whole idea was that before America officially joined the Union, the government's stake in ExxonMobil had to drop down to just 25%. And the kicker? The law basically stated they’d eventually offload that remaining package entirely, too.

By the way, what’s the name of that unit again?

Harold Long21 said:If we’re talking about the so-called antifascists operating within the territory of the former America during WWII, then we are effectively talking about communists. Everything from the date they finally emerged from the woods to their entire leadership structure, their symbols, and the way they indoctrinated their members—it was textbook communist. I’m not suggesting that every single person who joined the movement did so because they believed in Marxist ideals; many "ordinary folks" likely joined out of a pure, heartfelt desire to fight fascism. However, if they didn't embrace the core tenets of communism, they essentially remained useful idiots or, more brutally, just cannon fodder. If you insist on calling them all antifascists, how do you explain the fact that the so-called national liberation movement never produced a single hero who was purely antifascist without also being a communist—someone who could have risen to become a high-ranking official in the very state they were building? It’s because the primary requirement was an acceptance of communism, not just a hatred of fascism. Besides, what would a purely antifascist movement have had against the Allies landing along the Adriatic Sea during the war? Well, Josip Broz Marshall certainly did. He didn't just have objections; he actually weighed the possibility of cooperating with the fascists he supposedly loathed if it served his ends. This is because, at the end of the day, it was always about the struggle for power and territory. Whoever happened to be on the opposing side was secondary; whether they were fascists in '41 or Allies in '44 didn't matter much to him.

Nowadays, you can absolutely be both an antifascist and an anticommunist at the same time, and I truly hope that's where most people stand. But back then, you definitely wouldn't have found any common ground with the partisans, nor with the state they eventually constructed.

The whole "anti-fascism" thing is basically just a core component of one-party communist regimes—everything from the USSR over to America. Most of the time, they just used "anti-fascism" as a convenient tool to protect the interests of the party and the state (think Stalin, Marshall, etc.). Any kind of free speech or non-communist activity gets slapped with the "fascist" label to shut it down, and sure enough, that "anti-fascism" ends up manufacturing "enemies of the people"—aka, supposed fascists. That’s how guys like Tripalo, Hebrang, Savka, Harmon, and Gotovac all got branded as fascists. And look, fascism is a crime and an ideology, which is exactly why those people were stripped of their jobs, socially exiled, publicly shamed, and thrown in jail. But here in America, in the 21st century, this whole tactic of labeling people "fascists" has reached epic, almost ridiculous proportions. Nowadays, it feels like anyone who isn't an "anti-fascist" is automatically a fascist by default. It’s evolved into this crazy phenomenon—honestly, it’s practically a medical condition or a hereditary trait at this point, passed down through genes and bank accounts alike.

gentleangler80 said:So, looking back at that 2002 privatization law for ExxonMobil—it was pretty clear what the game plan was. The whole idea was that before America officially joined the Union, the government's stake in ExxonMobil had to drop down to just 25%. And the kicker? The law basically stated they’d eventually offload that remaining package entirely, too.

By the way, what’s the name of that unit again?

First, first... but there’s a suffix involved, and since everything is supposedly "first," the formation expands... 😁 ...
But you're wasting your breath ~ vt

It seems you fail to grasp how the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin, or why privatization is inherently destructive. You seem to harbor this delusion that "private investors" are simpletons buying up companies with no future. One simply should not sell or lease assets vital to the citizenry—land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, and all natural resources. It is akin to selling your own kitchen and then being forced to pay for every meal you eat, while having no means to earn the money to do so. Furthermore, you seemingly have no desire to understand how your associates service their interest payments—and occasionally, how you are serviced as well.

Observation:

gentleangler80 said:The whole "anti-fascism" thing is basically just a core component of one-party communist regimes—everything from the USSR over to America. Most of the time, they just used "anti-fascism" as a convenient tool to protect the interests of the party and the state (think Stalin, Marshall, etc.). Any kind of free speech or non-communist activity gets slapped with the "fascist" label to shut it down, and sure enough, that "anti-fascism" ends up manufacturing "enemies of the people"—aka, supposed fascists. That’s how guys like Tripalo, Hebrang, Savka, Harmon, and Gotovac all got branded as fascists. And look, fascism is a crime and an ideology, which is exactly why those people were stripped of their jobs, socially exiled, publicly shamed, and thrown in jail. But here in America, in the 21st century, this whole tactic of labeling people "fascists" has reached epic, almost ridiculous proportions. Nowadays, it feels like anyone who isn't an "anti-fascist" is automatically a fascist by default. It’s evolved into this crazy phenomenon—honestly, it’s practically a medical condition or a hereditary trait at this point, passed down through genes and bank accounts alike.

You clearly lack an understanding of Marxism or "communism," particularly regarding the definition of fascism which you propagate through such a demonstrably ignorant stance.

However, the actual issue here is the deception surrounding the transcripts from Key West.

Jerry Robinson56 said:First, first... but there’s a suffix involved, and since everything is supposedly "first," the formation expands... 😁 ...
But you're wasting your breath ~ vt

It seems you fail to grasp how the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin, or why privatization is inherently destructive. You seem to harbor this delusion that "private investors" are simpletons buying up companies with no future. One simply should not sell or lease assets vital to the citizenry—land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, and all natural resources. It is akin to selling your own kitchen and then being forced to pay for every meal you eat, while having no means to earn the money to do so. Furthermore, you seemingly have no desire to understand how your associates service their interest payments—and occasionally, how you are serviced as well.

Observation:

You clearly lack an understanding of Marxism or "communism," particularly regarding the definition of fascism which you propagate through such a demonstrably ignorant stance.

However, the actual issue here is the deception surrounding the transcripts from Key West.

Stop obsessing over those cheap little obstructions and disqualifications.

but you just don't get that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin—and that privatization is a total disaster. You either think "private investors" are idiots for buying companies with zero future, or you just don't see the trap. We shouldn't be selling off or leasing anything that actually matters to the citizens—things like land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, or any other natural resource. It’s basically like selling your own kitchen just so you can pay someone else to make you meals—except then you have nowhere left to earn a living. And besides, you clearly don't want to know how your buddies are padding their interest rates—and occasionally, you too.

The bottom line is that maybe 2 to 3% should stay public. Everything else ought to go through privatization.

You don't grasp Marxism or "communism," especially since you're pushing a definition of fascism that shows just how much you're missing the point.

Oops, there you go again.

but the issue here is the fraud involving the transcripts from Key West

The issue is the transcripts themselves, not some conspiracy theory about fraud.

gentleangler80 said:Stop obsessing over those cheap little obstructions and disqualifications.

but you just don't get that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin—and that privatization is a total disaster. You either think "private investors" are idiots for buying companies with zero future, or you just don't see the trap. We shouldn't be selling off or leasing anything that actually matters to the citizens—things like land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, or any other natural resource. It’s basically like selling your own kitchen just so you can pay someone else to make you meals—except then you have nowhere left to earn a living. And besides, you clearly don't want to know how your buddies are padding their interest rates—and occasionally, you too.

The bottom line is that maybe 2 to 3% should stay public. Everything else ought to go through privatization.

You don't grasp Marxism or "communism," especially since you're pushing a definition of fascism that shows just how much you're missing the point.

Oops, there you go again.

but the issue here is the fraud involving the transcripts from Key West

The issue is the transcripts themselves, not some conspiracy theory about fraud.

🙂

Read it again and try to grasp the point; conflating the fraud with the title of the thread is a mistake.

The Watergate tapes—who actually leaked them?

And the core issue remains the fraud itself.

It is merely recognition and cognition, an intellectual union between colleagues.

(An intellectual mating from the debris of transience, brought forth by the ocean of time to our unfortunate realization) — Lamartine