EgidiusPfanzelter Free

Recent Comments

  1. 1 minute ago on Bob Gorrell

    Yes, this has been the playbook for quite some time now. Since Newt Gingrich, I believe. Democrats are expected to behave while Republicans are allowed to hurl expletives.

  2. about 3 hours ago on Ted Rall

    Not necessary. The first amendment gives Mr. Rall the right to smear people.

  3. 3 days ago on B.C.

    You should feed them.

  4. 3 days ago on Lisa Benson

    End fossil fuels is nonsense, because they are known to be finite. The sooner we find renewable replacements, the better. Of course, the emission of greenhouse gases should be avoided for obvious reasons.

    Deficit spending is not really a Democratic policy. Both sides do it equally, they just spend the money for different things. Defund the police was a very unfortunate slogan, that has been misinterpreted. But it’s actually the Republicans who want to defund FBI.

    Lawfare is just nonsense.

    From an American point of view, most of Europe is soft on crime. And the crime rate is a lot lower. I wonder why.

  5. 4 days ago on Ted Rall

    “I’m sure that was obvious to you. Did you think it wasn’t to me?”

    Maybe a misunderstanding. It was and is not clear to me how much power you think elected lawmakers would (still) have. E.g. Democrats do a lot more for the protection of people (OSHA, Social Security, ACA, …) and the environment (EPA, Green Deal, …). Both is obviously not in the interest of the hyper-rich (as can be seen in Project 2025). So, why do the hyper-rich allow this?

  6. 4 days ago on Ted Rall

    Why and under which circumstances would the poor or the not-so-rich come out better than the rich? Even in a socialist or communist system the would at most come out equal. (But as Eastern Europe has unfortunately proven, worse than in a capitalist system, at least worse than in a social democratic one, e.g. East Germany vs. West Germany.)

  7. 4 days ago on Ted Rall

    That’s why I wondered about the hyper-rich running the show.

  8. 4 days ago on Clay Bennett

    It’s cool. You don’t have to understand that a country can be both, a republic and a democracy. If you run out of arguments you can always resort to ad hominem (e.g. “moron”).

  9. 4 days ago on Clay Bennett

    From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    “Is the United States a democracy or a republic?The United States is both a democracy and a republic. Democracies and republics are both forms of government in which supreme power resides in the citizens. The word republic refers specifically to a government in which those citizens elect representatives who govern according to the law. The word democracy can refer to this same kind of representational government, or it can refer instead to what is also called a direct democracy, in which the citizens themselves participate in the act of governing directly.“

    The explanation in Encyclopedia Britannica is probably too long for you, but also explains that the U.S.A. are a democracy.

  10. 5 days ago on Clay Bennett

    After your “we don’t live in a democracy“ comment I don’t believe that you are qualified to recognize errors in a trial.