Reply With Quote
bald face liar!
bald face liar!
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.
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.
Then the corps would wield their power without intermediaries?
If it was someone other than Obermann, I might take it more serious.
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.
this is the US political culture in a nuts . very sad but true.
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.
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..
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 en y 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 Cons ution 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.
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.
Politicians and media clowns with agendas telling me to ignore their opposition who have an agenda.
Yes sir yes ma'm zom zom zom
It should not - and still does not (although it has far more than it used to).
See previous response.Influence peddling exists from the fact that they can regulate the entire economy, regardless of the money spent.
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).The only question is wether they're going to be the intermediary between we the people and corporations or not.
Govt. with regulatory control > Govt. with outright ownership.
That's a very bad thing considering historical data has it that the government only can take in 18% of the GNP.
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 Cons ution.
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.
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 s to the corporations they serve.
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 cons ution. "Certain Inalienable Rights" trump the government.
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.
"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 cons ution. "Certain Inalienable Rights" trump the government."
All honorable, but theoretical bull . 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 ins utions over individuals.
iow, the corporations and capital are the Supreme Good, not individuals. USA has become the Catholic Church, or France, where the ins ution 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.
you are stupid.
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...
...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.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
