Monday, 28 March 2011

A revealing difference

Protesters against government policy condemned in London as "violent mob", whilst Libyan rebel army is supported by British military.

More of Rivero's Hypocrisy - this time on Unions

Rivero has spent years attacking Trades Unions, yet now Wisconsin has flared up, Rivero has flip-flopped and in good populist style swung around to support "the people". Opportunist hypocrite......

Here's Rivero speaking about Unions recently -
More in similar vein has been appearing at his site during the Wisconsin protests. But it is completely hypocritical of Rivero to support Unions now - even on the terms he claims which is "to support working Americans keep what they have".

Here's some of Rivero's vilification of Unions from before the Wisconsin troubles -
It's very easy to find similar stories in Rivero's archives, all of them furiously attacking Trades Unions of course. So, Rivero's position is pure hypocritical opportunism. And again, nobody at his site raises the issue of why Rivero has performed a 180 reversal -- he has been union-bashing for years yet suddenly turns tailcoat now. Why? Nobody at his site notices, let alone do they care.

Rivero - never mind the facts.......

What a complete load of tosh. Rivero has never cared to bother to ask if the ECB is a private bank or not. It isn't.

The Federal Reserve is not a 'private central bank' either, really - it's an agency of government, subject to the will of Congress - which returns any surplus back to the Treasury each year.

People who make these claims have no idea what they are talking about.

For instance, the idea that money is debt, and that there is never enough money to pay off the debt is a complete fallacy: every bank loan is entered as double entry in the system - a bank loan is an asset for the bank, a liability for the borrower - same figure on both sides of the books. Any liability for any borrower - including interest - appears as an asset of the same value on the banks' books. And what about depositors? Where does their interest come from? It comes from the lending activities - banks lend depositor's funds. Bank deposits are listed as liabilities on bank balance sheets and if the borrowers fail to repay the bank, those liabilities fall upon the bank itself. There's really no hoodoo here at all.

All debts/liabilities in the system are listed as credits/assets elsewhere in the system. Rivero doesn't know the most elementary of banking or accountancy practice.

One might as well ask where the "extra" money for Ford to make profit selling cars comes from as they pay less to build a car than they ask for when selling it. Presumably this means nobody can buy cars, or anything else - which is clearly the case, right?

Monday, 21 March 2011

Rivero's volte-face complete

Last week Rivero supported military intervention in Libya. This week that same intervention he's calling a war crime, an unconstitutional illegal war.

Quite some turn around?

LAst week was claiming Israel was backing Gadaffi (50,000 mercenaries?) and therefore the USA would be forced to veto any UN action against Libya (because Israel rules the world, of course, of course.)

Following the UN vote in support of military intervention, Rivero has had to perform a volte face. Last week he was calling everyone "pussies" because it looked as if intervention lacked sufficient will and support. This week he's calling that intervention "a war" which he says is illegal and unconstitutional.

And nobody at his website mentions it. Did nobody notice it?

So, here's the pics of Rivero this week masquerading as a principled opponent of the military intervention, rather than the cheerleader he was just the week before:

He performs a complete volte face, then readjusts and settles back to find whom to blame......and it's Israel! Again! Big shock? It was all Israel's fault before events proved his analysis completely wrong - yet even now after he's performed a complete 180 he still blames Israel. Funny. His "anti-zionism" is unfalsifiable.

What a shameless twerp.

Here's Rivero from just last week, cheerleading for "an illegal war"....

More of Rivero's hypocrisy from last week, here.

Friday, 18 March 2011

BBC: UK forces prepare after UN no-fly zone vote

What are UK forces preparing for? Military intervention in someone else's civil war? In a foreign uprising? In a rebellion? A coup? What?

I'm shocked. Egyptians didn't want and didn't get outside interference, but Libyans do and will?

The most sensible thing in the BBC article comes from Libya/Gadaffi:
In response to warnings from Libya's defence ministry that any outside attack would trigger retaliation and destabilise the Mediterranean region, the Foreign Office said Britain would not be diverted from its objective.
The BBC put that paragraph right at the last to conclude a relatively very long article for the BBC. I think it deserves a little more attention than that. Crikey. We're off to war again, really - just like that. For what? To support domestic opposition to Gadaffi? Hmmmm. I have deep reservations. The record for such things is not good, is it?

Events prove Rivero to be completely wrong

Events have overtaken Rivero, proving his claims wholly wrong. Events have proven his analysis to be errant nonsense.

Rivero has been spitting fury because apparently Israel has been working to undermine what he calls the Libyan 'democratic revolution' - because Israel's like that, see. Rivero claims that because Israel is pro-Gadaffi, and against the rebels, then no international intervention could take place against Libya. Rivero said the world would cave-in to Israeli influence....just as the USA always does, apparently.

Here's Rivero from just a few days ago:

So, according to Rivero ISrael is fighting on behalf of Gadaffi, and therefore Gadaffi's regime is immune to international concern and agitation.

Here's Rivero expounding on his meme:

Pretty clear position, right? Here's Rivero again, effectively supporting military action against Gadaffi (something he is always against when it is the USA seeking intervention):

When the UN vote on intervention was mooted, Rivero claimed that the USA would veto it, under direction from Gadaffi's supporters in Israel, of course (because Israel runs America, according to Rivero):

And yet, when the UN voted, it voted for military action against Gadaffi. Despite Israel running the USA, Mr Rivero?

When the vote came in, Rivero responded thus:

What on earth does he mean? That he really is shocked? The way he has written is a cliched way of saying one is not shocked - and yet events happened exactly contrary to what Rivero believed would happen. Rivero was proven completely wrong - about the UN voting for intervention, about a US veto, about Israel's influence on USA and the international community, UN etc.

He couldn't have been any more wrong. Yet now he asks us to 'imagine his shock'?

What is it that is going to give amongst Rivero's ridiculous analysis? Something has to. Somehow I don't think it will lead him to reassess Israel's influence.

Update - As soon as I finished this post I went back to WRH and one of the posts above has already been changed. This is how the comment now appears:

As the story develops Rivero has added this under a new story about the vote for military intervention:

So he *is* shocked?

Yes, your analysis was proven completely wrong, Mr Rivero! Absolutely, completely wrong.

Please take note? Neither USA nor the UN etc "caved-in" to Israel's determination to (supposedly) protect Gadaffi, Mr Rivero.

Interesting to see how he is going to squirm out of this.

ETA - in the day or so since Rivero posted on UN resolution he's gone pretty silent on Libya. WRH has posted 100 articles on nuclear fears re Japan, but only 15 articles relating to Libya. He's holding off commenting on any of it? Some of what he posted (without comment) was the usual critical view one might have expected Rivero to adopt - the view he'll probably retreat to once his lobbying and support for intervention drops back a few more pages. Amusingly he did say "no-one is mentioning the Israeli mercenaries" (which he claims are supporting Gadaffi). So why is USA attacking Israel's supposed interests, Mr Rivero? No answer.

Saturday, 5 March 2011

27k and 1024k/1Mb 24 bit per pixel