politicians are $$$$paid to opose healthcare reform..caught on tape.

[antimvp]

IbWw23XwO5o

[cheguevara]

bald face liar!

[jack sommerset]

I can't watch this guy. If his allegations have any merit I'm sure many,many,many,many,many credible news outlets will report it.

[101A]

Naive fool - both Anti AND Olberman.

Why don't you look into the lobbying activities of certain Senator's (and ex Senator's) wives?

Specifically Lieberman, Dodd and Daschle.

See who has paid them, and what they have to do with healthcare!!!

When the government has power over something - that power is for sale - corporations stand in line to buy it; then have the govt. wield that power over us - because the corps can't do it themselves!!! If the govt. never had the power in the first place.....oh never mind there's obviously too many steps for you to follow to grasp this.

Profit bad. Corporation bad. Government no make profit. Government good.

I get it.

[ElNono]

If the govt. never had the power in the first place.....

Then the corps would wield their power without intermediaries?

[Wild Cobra]

If it was someone other than Obermann, I might take it more serious.

[101A]

Then the corps would wield their power without intermediaries?

How would corps have power over me specifically?

If I choose not to do business with one, or enter into a contract with one, I will.

They can't arrest, or compel ME to do anything. They can't confiscate my house, or take my children from me - they can't define what my children will learn, or limit what materials we have access to. They can't take my guns from me, or deny my access to public areas, or my own property. They cannot incarcerate me, or legally end my life. They cannot tell me where, or where not I can live, or how I can make a living.

The government can do all of these things - only by manipulating the government can the corporations. Powerful people in government are almost always tied to, or are the very same powerful people in corporations.

[rjv]

Powerful people in government are almost always tied to, or are the very same powerful people in corporations.

this is the US political culture in a nutshell. very sad but true.

[TheProfessor]

Olbermann's pretty much lost whatever cred he used to have during the Bush admin. He was interesting as the liberal lightning rod back then, but has bordered on self-parody for a while.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If it was someone other than Obermann, I might take it more serious.

Good. Now we can dismiss your links and such because we don't like who is giving the information.. that makes it much easier to take you less serious than we already do..

[ElNono]

How would corps have power over me specifically?

If I choose not to do business with one, or enter into a contract with one, I will.

They can't arrest, or compel ME to do anything. They can't confiscate my house, or take my children from me - they can't define what my children will learn, or limit what materials we have access to. They can't take my guns from me, or deny my access to public areas, or my own property. They cannot incarcerate me, or legally end my life. They cannot tell me where, or where not I can live, or how I can make a living.

The government can do all of these things - only by manipulating the government can the corporations. Powerful people in government are almost always tied to, or are the very same powerful people in corporations.

The common mistake is to think that the size of government is what dictates wether those rights you mentioned can be truncated or removed, where the reality is that the presence (or absence) of government itself is what determines that. If we took out the government out of the equation, we would go back to feudalism or colonialism, where the entity with the greatest resources mostly always won, and where all those rights you mentioned were not recognized as rights at all, and were trumped on a daily basis.

The reality is that even if we would shrink our current government to the absolute minimum, those rights you love so much can still be easily taken away from you. IE: All states except yours vote to amend the Constitution and redact the 2nd Amendment to remove the right to bear arms, and you're SOL. So, the power is there, no matter the size.

For anything that's not rights-related, well, everything is debatable.
I personally subscribe to the notion that you need to strike a careful balance between the market and regulation. I don't really believe zero regulation all the time works, or that massive regulation all the time works either.

[101A]

The common mistake is to think that the size of government is what dictates wether those rights you mentioned can be truncated or removed

No.

The size of govt. dictates how much control and influence it has over the dollars spent, and the goings on of each individual's life under their pervue. The more they control; the more control can be garnered out to the highest bidder, or person with the most influence. The Fed spends 20% of GDP right now; giving it absolute control of that; that number looks to be increasing.

[ElNono]

No.

The size of govt. dictates how much control and influence it has over the dollars spent, and the goings on of each individual's life under their pervue. The more they control; the more control can be garnered out to the highest bidder, or person with the most influence. The Fed spends 20% of GDP right now; giving it absolute control of that; that number looks to be increasing.

The government has control and influence inherently on everything, even if it wouldn't be spending a dime. Influence peddling exists from the fact that they can regulate the entire economy, regardless of the money spent.
The only question is wether they're going to be the intermediary between we the people and corporations or not.

[SonOfAGun]

Politicians and media clowns with agendas telling me to ignore their opposition who have an agenda.

Yes sir yes ma'm zom zom zom

[101A]

The government has control and influence inherently on everything, even if it wouldn't be spending a dime.

It should not - and still does not (although it has far more than it used to).


Influence peddling exists from the fact that they can regulate the entire economy, regardless of the money spent.

See previous response.


The only question is wether they're going to be the intermediary between we the people and corporations or not.

According to your own logic, it does not matter, does it? If the govt. can control ANYTHING they want to, only restricted by itself; we have already lost (and so have the corps).

Govt. with regulatory control > Govt. with outright ownership.

[Wild Cobra]

No.

The size of govt. dictates how much control and influence it has over the dollars spent, and the goings on of each individual's life under their pervue. The more they control; the more control can be garnered out to the highest bidder, or person with the most influence. The Fed spends 20% of GDP right now; giving it absolute control of that; that number looks to be increasing.
That's a very bad thing considering historical data has it that the government only can take in 18% of the GNP.

[ElNono]

It should not - and still does not (although it has far more than it used to).

Of course it does. That in times past it decided not to exercise that much control doesn't necessarily mean it didn't have said control and influence.
They write the laws, and can judge what's legal or not. They have the ultimate control, and had it since we all pledged to live by the rules spelled out in the Constitution.


According to your own logic, it does not matter, does it? If the govt. can control ANYTHING they want to, only restricted by itself; we have already lost (and so have the corps).

Govt. with regulatory control > Govt. with outright ownership.

Exactly, it really doesn't matter. The only reason they really do something about the general population is that they need to convince you to vote them every term. So they throw you a bone here and there. And the Corps never really lose when it comes to lobbying. There's always one more loophole to pay for campaigns and they can always play for both candidates. Politicians need the corps intrinsically considering the amount of money it costs to run a campaign.
But this is not new... it has been like this since I have memory.

[antimvp]

Politicians and media clowns with agendas telling me to ignore their opposition who have an agenda.

Yes sir yes ma'm zom zom zom


if the media clown is trying to help the people....i think that agenda is a honorable one.

if the media clown is pushing a corporate agenda.....then they are whores to the corporations they serve.

[101A]

Of course it does. That in times past it decided not to exercise that much control doesn't necessarily mean it didn't have said control and influence.
They write the laws, and can judge what's legal or not. They have the ultimate control, and had it since we all pledged to live by the rules spelled out in the Constitution.

The Government derives its power from the people; and its power is (was) strictly limited; It DOES NOT have control over everything, nor does it have the right to control everything. It does not have ultimate control BECAUSE of the constitution. "Certain Inalienable Rights" trump the government.

[SonOfAGun]

if the media clown is trying to help the people....i think that agenda is a honorable one.

if the media clown is pushing a corporate agenda.....then they are whores to the corporations they serve.

If we assume helping said person would amount to anything of value, that person would not be the kind that would need media clown to help them in the first place.

[boutons_deux]

"The Government derives its power from the people; and its power is (was) strictly limited; It DOES NOT have control over everything, nor does it have the right to control everything. It does not have ultimate control BECAUSE of the constitution. "Certain Inalienable Rights" trump the government."

All honorable, but theoretical bullshit. In practice, violated more than it is respected.

Congress and WH are fully captured by corporate and capitalist money, and the SC's radical conservatives favor institutions over individuals.

iow, the corporations and capital are the Supreme Good, not individuals. USA has become the Catholic Church, or France, where the institution always wins vs. any individual.

[101A]

iow, the corporations and capital are the Supreme Good, not individuals. USA has become the Catholic Church, or France, where the institution always wins vs. any individual.

I agree. Although I would suggest it is not just the Republicans who have worked us to this point; it is the entire political atmosphere and tradition. It is inbred croniism at its finest. Sons and Wives of Senators become Senators. Sons of Presidents become President; Wives of Presidents become Senators; All Kennedys get to be damn near anything they want; etc. etc....

They are all working to their own selfish ends; as most all people will ALWAYS do - it is why it was SO vitally important to limit the power held by so few people. We have failed.

Somebody posted a few weeks ago that allowing the House to increase in size; so that individual members would represent fewer people, would be a good thing. I thing it would be a very good thing; but it stopped growing back in the Ninteen-teens (the same time the Fed was established, and the income tax was levied, and judicial corporatism was defined - ALSO the absolute PINNACLE of industrialist power; when the nations wealth was more concentrated than ever before, or since, in a very few, very, very powerful hands, the league of nations, etc. etc.....) If there were any conspiracy theories I might subscribe to, it would stem from whatever happened then.

[antimvp]

If we assume helping said person would amount to anything of value, that person would not be the kind that would need media clown to help them in the first place.


:lol:downspin:

you are stupid.

[ElNono]

I agree. Although I would suggest it is not just the Republicans who have worked us to this point; it is the entire political atmosphere and tradition. It is inbred croniism at its finest. Sons and Wives of Senators become Senators. Sons of Presidents become President; Wives of Presidents become Senators; All Kennedys get to be damn near anything they want; etc. etc....

They are all working to their own selfish ends; as most all people will ALWAYS do - it is why it was SO vitally important to limit the power held by so few people. We have failed.

Somebody posted a few weeks ago that allowing the House to increase in size; so that individual members would represent fewer people, would be a good thing. I thing it would be a very good thing; but it stopped growing back in the Ninteen-teens (the same time the Fed was established, and the income tax was levied, and judicial corporatism was defined - ALSO the absolute PINNACLE of industrialist power; when the nations wealth was more concentrated than ever before, or since, in a very few, very, very powerful hands, the league of nations, etc. etc.....) If there were any conspiracy theories I might subscribe to, it would stem from whatever happened then.

Good points. And I never even advanced the possibility that this is a single party issue, because it isn't. I think Marcus Bryant described it best: Theres the DC party, then everyone else...

[Nbadan]

...blame Washington all you want, but WE the people keep voting these cronies back to Washington....restoring our Democracy must come after restoring our M$M.....

[antimvp]

......after this shit. .the Fairness Doctrine is coming back. count on it.

[ElNono]

...blame Washington all you want, but WE the people keep voting these cronies back to Washington....restoring our Democracy must come after restoring our M$M.....

Call me back when your options are not crony A vs crony B.

[101A]

...blame Washington all you want, but WE the people keep voting these cronies back to Washington....restoring our Democracy must come after restoring our M$M.....


They play us against each other; my district is reliably conservative; "my" representative is "conservative".

Who will my choices be in the next general election?

My guy, and some WAY left wing option from the Dems; the deck is stacked.

Ironically (from my point of view), Rahm Emanuel is most responsible recently for bucking this trend; running actual Moderate/Conservative Democrats to wrest control in some conservative districts; it worked, and now those new congressmen are a pain for the Dems - a good thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Somebody posted a few weeks ago that allowing the House to increase in size; so that individual members would represent fewer people, would be a good thing. I thing it would be a very good thing;
I have mentioned it a few times now, so you are probably think of my post.

First of all, I believe it was limited because they foresaw problems in accommodating so many representatives as the population grew. Therefore they limited it to the current number at the time. Each representative represented 30,000 people or more people as the constitution was written. For every 30,000 people, each state could add another representative. Public Law 62-5 (http://publiclaw62-5.com/U.S.%20Code%20Chapter%201%20Title%202%20Sec.%202.t xt) fixed it at 435 members.

Think about it. Even at 100,000 people per representative, we would now have 3,000 or more representatives after the 2010 census. 3,000 people are far harder to buy off by corporations and lobby groups that 435 are. Then of course, we the people, might even be able to schedule an appointment with our representative. Deep pockets wouldn't be able to influence the same percentage of the congressional picture either.

I would like to see the number restored to 1 in 30,000 or 50,000. With modern communications, they can all stay at their home office.

I see only advantages to this. I think the benefits of better representation outweigh the pay and benefits of 2600 more representatives.

Think about it. My state could have 114 representatives instead of 5. Texas could have 695 instead of 32.

[Wild Cobra]

......after this shit. .the Fairness Doctrine is coming back. count on it.
No, that would be DOA. They have other plans under nice names to stop free speech they oppose.

[101A]

I see only advantages to this.

You and I both; however the Congressman themselves see MANY disadvantages.....hell it's been 435 for so long; there are probably people who believe THAT is in the Constitution.