|
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 8:56*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:35 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts wrote: What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special interests" could ever hope to scrape up. Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet to see stats to back it up. Even a rudely educated twit knows that Union Dues cannot match the massive wealth of corporations Idiot. Ah, another liberal who only understands insults. Okay, I'll speak Liberal, just for you: Hey, asshole! Even a moron leftist knows that unions aren't limited to union dues. They raise money through their 501s and 527s, and use it to elect liberal Democrats. Moron. There, I've lowered myself to your level, but if that's what it takes to speak your lingo... |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 9:30*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: IMHO, you are a real simpleton because you just happened to "overlook" G.W. Bush as one of the worst presidents. Stevie Nichts wrote: WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked. Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, you seriously disappoint me. I list ONE person that I think should be added to the list of bad presidents and I'm "seriously whacked"? Uh, no, Joe, Joe, Joe. You're seriously whacked because you seem incapable of expressing a thought without taking on a gratuitous insult. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 9:30*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:33 am, Joe from Kokomo wrote: On Jan 22, 2:57 am, bpnjensen wrote: Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America. Stevie Nichts wrote: First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions, environmentalists, and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. Well, yeah, you're right -- kinda, sorta. What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special interests" could ever hope to scrape up. Stevie Nichts wrote: Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet to see stats to back it up. What boogeyman and what stats? It is pretty much intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Big Business has more money than the Unions because a) the unions have been decreasing in strength for years True only of non-government unions. Govenment unions, however, now account for 51% of all union members -- and climbing.. In the midst of this recession, with 10% unemployment, Congress somehow managed to pad the Federal payroll with 70,000 new hires. I note that you seem unable to back up your claim that evil corporations spend TONS of money. OpenSecrets is your friend. And there's no reason to limit the discussion to unions. Corporations are not, by definition, conservative. Trivial proof: George Soros. Or is that different somehow? Please answer me this: If I recall correctly, there used to be a limit on how much of a political contribution could be made, possibly $2500. And I seem to further remember that occasionally, some tried to donate more than that, got caught and was prosecuted. Please tell me how anything over $2500 used to be bad and now they can donate 25 MILLION or 125 million, the sky is the limit. Again, everything to do with buying politicians, damned little to do with your red herring of free speech. We've seen how utterly ineffectual campaign-finance laws have been -- or haven't you noticed that money somehow manages to get spent? Limit it here, it pops up there, in the form of PACs and 501s and 527s and other special interests -- many of them established by Mr. Soros and his ideological comrades. You won't get far trying to convince anyone that liberals are somehow powerless when it comes to funding. Me, I'll take 100% disclosure and absolute transparency over such impotent attempts anytime. Unlike you, I have faith in the American voter -- and my faith was restored a couple of days ago in Massachusetts. (Oh... too soon? ;) As an aside, it's interesting that a liberal (or so I presume) believes that free speech is a 'red herring.' Civil rights and civil liberties used to be a bedrock principle of the left. When, exactly, did that change? |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... "Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... bpnjensen wrote: Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed the elections and thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America. Extrapolate from that what you will. Extrapolate what I will? OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy. Joe Irvin wrote: Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans are to dumb to figure things out. To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding. Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust for the people. Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read "Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad? If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read it. Why don't you give the theme of the book. The 1st amendment most fundamental purpose is to protect political free speech. This decision seems to be a step in that direction. If they could only strike down McCain-Feigold. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... "dave" wrote in message m... Joe Irvin wrote: Take a look at how much the Dems take from 'big corps' http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...y=A&cycle=2010 Bruce Jensen Two "wrongs" do not make a "right". Joe Irvin wrote: Why is it wrong for corporations to represent their interests? As long as their is a disclaimer where the money comes from let the voter decide ... whats wrong with that? It seems everyone starts with the assumptions that corporations are bad/evil. Dammit Joe, I sincerely mean it when I say you should read Perkins' book. I really believe it would answer a lot of your questions. An easy read and carried by many public libraries. I really don't have any questions about the 1st amendment ... its original intent as we are discussing it, was to protect free speech, leaving aside religion and freedom to assemble. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 9:30 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: On Jan 22, 7:33 am, Joe from Kokomo wrote: On Jan 22, 2:57 am, bpnjensen wrote: Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America. Stevie Nichts wrote: First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions, environmentalists, and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. Well, yeah, you're right -- kinda, sorta. What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special interests" could ever hope to scrape up. Stevie Nichts wrote: Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet to see stats to back it up. What boogeyman and what stats? It is pretty much intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Big Business has more money than the Unions because a) the unions have been decreasing in strength for years Stevie Nichts wrote: True only of non-government unions. Govenment unions, however, now account for 51% of all union members -- and climbing. Huh? Government unions climbing? As in starting back when Ronnie Reagan smashed, shredded and destroyed the Air Traffic Controller's union? THOSE government unions? ROTFL!!! As an aside, it's interesting that a liberal (or so I presume) believes that free speech is a 'red herring.' Civil rights and civil liberties used to be a bedrock principle of the left. When, exactly, did that change? Making quite a leap there, aren't you Stevie? I referred to YOUR use of it as a red herring in THIS discussion only. You seem to have extrapolated it to a broad, general statement. Be careful that you don't hurt yourself making such broad leaps. ;-) |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... "Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... bpnjensen wrote: Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed the elections and thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America. Extrapolate from that what you will. Extrapolate what I will? OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy. Joe Irvin wrote: Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans are to dumb to figure things out. To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding. Joe Irvin wrote: Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust for the people. Yes, I agree...money is necessary for people to get elected to office, BUT... ....when you are talking millions and TENS of millions of donation dollars with no limit nor oversight, you are creating a very dangerous situation, ripe for abuse. Both political parties have had their share of crooked *******s -- and even "honest" people may well be corrupted when you dangle millions under their nose. Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read "Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad? If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read it. Why don't you give the theme of the book. I thought I did, but here goes again. The book is divided in two parts, the second part being his potential solutions -- which you may or may not agree with. The first part of the book describes actual, real-life, documented evils of Corporatocracy. Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you see any problem. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 9:30 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: IMHO, you are a real simpleton because you just happened to "overlook" G.W. Bush as one of the worst presidents. Stevie Nichts wrote: WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked. Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, you seriously disappoint me. I list ONE person that I think should be added to the list of bad presidents and I'm "seriously whacked"? Stevie Nichts wrote: Uh, no, Joe, Joe, Joe. You're seriously whacked because you seem incapable of expressing a thought without taking on a gratuitous insult. Hey, every boy needs a hobby... ....and you don't seem to be doing too badly in the insult department yourself. ;-) But it's not about me. Why don't you try addressing the original contention of G.W. Bush belonging on the list of worst presidents? |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: Again, you seem to overlook a simple fact: Obama INHERITED not just one but TWO expensive so-called wars with no exit strategy Stevie Nichts wrote: And yet, Obama assured us that he *had* an exit strategy for Iraq -- and don't you remember him telling you that Afghanistan was the important war? Sure you do!. Hey Stevie... Are ya sittin' down? Are ya ready for this? I agree with you; we are on the same side of the fence on this one. Obama was just telling the people what they wanted to hear -- and they -desperately- want to hear that we are going to get out of those two fiasco sink hole 'wars'. A politician that tells the people what they want to hear -- how quaint! I'm sure no Republican politician ever did that. But let's look a little deeper. Poppy (Bush Sr.), in his book, stated that he did not invade Iraq because "there was no exit strategy". W painted us in a corner in both places -- we are screwed if we stay...and we are screwed if we leave. Why? Because there is NO EXIT STRATEGY. Too bad junior didn't listen to Poppy. And no easy solution for Obama, McCain or anyone else. So, Obama said it, people are hoping he's right...but only time will tell. and INHERITED a major Depression -- that started on Bush's watch. Say, when did the Democrats take over Congress? Oh, right: 2006. Would you care to revise and extend your remarks? And what's this about a "depression"? Not even Krugman goes that far. Go on, do go on. It DID start on Bush's watch as stated above, pegged at either 4Q '07 or 1 Q '08 by nothing less than the very right wing Wall Street Journal. As to a "depression", it could be semantics... but it IS the worst economic upset since 1929. You have to realize that the gubermint fudges the figures; for example, once your unemployment benefits run out, the gubermint takes you OFF the list of the unemployed -- even though you still ARE unemployed. inflation...the gubermint jockeys those numbers around too, by either continuously changing the "market basket" of goods they use, or just plain ignoring costs of education, medical care and energy. Believe it or not, many do call this a Depression. Your mileage may vary. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... "Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... "Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... bpnjensen wrote: Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed the elections and thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America. Extrapolate from that what you will. Extrapolate what I will? OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy. Joe Irvin wrote: Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans are to dumb to figure things out. To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding. Joe Irvin wrote: Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust for the people. Yes, I agree...money is necessary for people to get elected to office, BUT... Ok we have agreement there, that money is needed to get one elected. Now if I'm understanding what you are saying we need restraints on the amount of money?? who is to decide how much money is needed and who can contribute? ...when you are talking millions and TENS of millions of donation dollars with no limit nor oversight, you are creating a very dangerous situation, ripe for abuse. Both political parties have had their share of crooked *******s -- and even "honest" people may well be corrupted when you dangle millions under their nose. Money corportions give is not to the politician, but a commercial for/against a politician. If there is full disclosure why isn't this enough? My default is free political speech no matter whether a citizen/association/corporation. Money is like water it finds its way into the political process. Congress has tried, at least since Nixon to control money into politics ... they haven't. Why not let the money flow, because it is anyway, just let everyone know who is giving the money. We are going to have the crooks anyway. Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read "Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad? If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read it. Why don't you give the theme of the book. I thought I did, but here goes again. The book is divided in two parts, the second part being his potential solutions -- which you may or may not agree with. The first part of the book describes actual, real-life, documented evils of Corporatocracy. This is the real world, Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom etc. These will always be with us even with strict regulation. With all the laws we have we still have Bernie Madoff ... In the cases above the government regulation was suppose to shield us from the problems ... it didn't ... we shouldn't default to more govt control. I read some of the reviews of the book Hookwinked ... its the same old stuff .... the West (capitalism) is the cause of all the world's problems ... "We, and the rest of the West, learned the trick of selling unneeded infrastructure, services, over-sophisticated weapons--stuff that could never benefit anyone other than the people who lined their pockets. And yes, Perkins is right, the international economists and press were handmaidens to the thievery." http://www.amazon.com/Hoodwinked-Eco...at_ep_dpt_2Who is it that responds to the world when it gets into trouble? In Haitiwas it the evil West (US) or the middle eastern dictators that respondedwith help? During the industrial revolution was it the capitalist that wentout in the country side snatching people off their subsistance farms andbringing them into the towns to work in factories? ... their livingstandards were raised. Capitalism is the reason the west has such a highliving standard. Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you seeany problem.I see a problem with any book that tends to blame the West generally and theUS in particular for the world problems when the US is a nobel nation andhas done so much in the world. I know the US isn't perfect, but when itsjudged against other countries the US come out pretty good IMO. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: Again, you seem to overlook a simple fact: Obama INHERITED not just one but TWO expensive so-called wars with no exit strategy Stevie Nichts wrote: And yet, Obama assured us that he *had* an exit strategy for Iraq -- and don't you remember him telling you that Afghanistan was the important war? Sure you do!. Hey Stevie... Are ya sittin' down? Are ya ready for this? I agree with you; we are on the same side of the fence on this one. Obama was just telling the people what they wanted to hear -- and they -desperately- want to hear that we are going to get out of those two fiasco sink hole 'wars'. A politician that tells the people what they want to hear -- how quaint! I'm sure no Republican politician ever did that. But let's look a little deeper. Poppy (Bush Sr.), in his book, stated that he did not invade Iraq because "there was no exit strategy". W painted us in a corner in both places -- we are screwed if we stay...and we are screwed if we leave. Why? Because there is NO EXIT STRATEGY. Too bad junior didn't listen to Poppy. And no easy solution for Obama, McCain or anyone else. So Muslim jihadists had been attacking the US at least since the taking of hostages in Iran ... bombing of Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, bombing two US embassies in Africa, Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, World Trade Center I bombing and then flying planes into the WTC to name a few attacks on the US. Also keep in mind that Saddam had not complied with the agreement for 12 years to account for his WMD. What would be your next move .... to keep talking ... the UN had done this for 12 years ... we got the food for oil scam from the UN. So, Obama said it, people are hoping he's right...but only time will tell. I give Obama credit for going after Muslim jihadists and his stepping up the use of military drones to attack Muslim jihadists around the world. I don't support his handling of the enemy combatants. and INHERITED a major Depression -- that started on Bush's watch. Say, when did the Democrats take over Congress? Oh, right: 2006. Would you care to revise and extend your remarks? And what's this about a "depression"? Not even Krugman goes that far. Go on, do go on. It DID start on Bush's watch as stated above, pegged at either 4Q '07 or 1 Q '08 by nothing less than the very right wing Wall Street Journal. Keeping in mind that Congress was held by the Democrats as the US economy started south ... Congress controls the money and legislation. 4Q '07 or 1st Q '08 there was a Democratic Congress ... what did they do? Unemployment was about 4.6% at that time. As to a "depression", it could be semantics... but it IS the worst economic upset since 1929. You have to realize that the gubermint fudges the figures; for example, once your unemployment benefits run out, the gubermint takes you OFF the list of the unemployed -- even though you still ARE unemployed. inflation...the gubermint jockeys those numbers around too, by either continuously changing the "market basket" of goods they use, or just plain ignoring costs of education, medical care and energy. Believe it or not, many do call this a Depression. Your mileage may vary. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 23, 12:32*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Stevie Nichts wrote: True only of non-government unions. Govenment unions, however, now account for 51% of all union members -- and climbing. Huh? Government unions climbing? Yup. And it's 52%: ---- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj What is newsworthy, however, is another figure reported by the BLS: 52 percent of all union members work for the federal or state and local governments, a sharp increase from the 49 percent in 2008.[5] A majority of American union members are now employed by the government; three times more union members now work in the Post Office than in the auto industry.[6] ---- |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 23, 2:42*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
I list ONE person that I think should be added to the list of bad presidents and I'm "seriously whacked"? Stevie Nichts wrote: Uh, no, Joe, Joe, Joe. You're seriously whacked because you seem incapable of expressing a thought without taking on a gratuitous insult. Hey, every boy needs a hobby... ...and you don't seem to be doing too badly in the insult department yourself. * ;-) I only return what's dished out. If you don't like it, well... But it's not about me. Why don't you try addressing the original contention of G.W. Bush belonging on the list of worst presidents? Okay: I don't agree. Hope that helps. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:46:34 -0800, pyjamarama wrote:
"We the corporate, in order to destroy any unions, establish injustice, upset domestic tranquility, abuse the common defense for oil and profit, remove public welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for only our rich people and our posterity, do ordain and rewrite this Constitution of the United States of America. " |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
Joe Irvin wrote:
I read some of the reviews of the book Hookwinked ... its the same old stuff ... the West (capitalism) is the cause of all the world's problems Well, not quite true... He is a believer in capitalism -- but he contends that we currently have, for lack of a better term, a perverted or mutant form of capitalism. Who is it that responds to the world when it gets into trouble? In Haitiwas it the evil West (US) or the middle eastern dictators that respondedwith help? During the industrial revolution was it the capitalist that wentout in the country side snatching people off their subsistance farms andbringing them into the towns to work in factories? ... their livingstandards were raised. Capitalism is the reason the west has such a highliving standard. Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you seeany problem.I see a problem with any book that tends to blame the West generally and theUS in particular for the world problems when the US is a nobel nation andhas done so much in the world. I know the US isn't perfect, but when itsjudged against other countries the US come out pretty good IMO. Joe, basically all I can say is to read the book. Yes, we as the American people, are good. However, there is NO denying that our government HAS tinkered with and fixed elections in several countries, committed assassinations, poked our nose where it didn't belong and thus created a lot of ill will (and worse). Like it or not and believe it or not, that is a historical fact. Again, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK, you would see that Perkins IS a fan of, and believer in, capitalism (all the good things you say about capitalism above are true), but not a fan of the perverted form of capitalism we now have. No sense in us going back and forth like this until you read at least half the book. I am not Perkins nor can I do him justice unless I quote (and type) a large portion of the book -- and I am not a fast typist. :-) Therefore, I propose putting this thread on hold... |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Ima wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:46:34 -0800, pyjamarama wrote: "We the corporate, in order to destroy any unions, establish injustice, upset domestic tranquility, abuse the common defense for oil and profit, remove public welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for only our rich people and our posterity, do ordain and rewrite this Constitution of the United States of America. " "We the leftists, in order to slake our unquenchable class-envy and miserable dispositions demand all the free **** we feel we're entitled to; to be paid for by those who work hard, sacrifice, risk capital and otherwise out-produce us or we'll scream until we're blue in the face." Scream away, slappy.... America hears you and rejects you out-of-hand. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
ILLEGAL, INELIGBLE, Born in Kenya!
DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMB ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS lashes out at Supreme Court. http://www.clarionledger.com B HO!!! cuhulin |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:48 -0800, pyjamarama wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:01Â*pm, Ima wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:46:34 -0800, pyjamarama wrote: "We the corporate, in order to destroy any unions, establish injustice, upset domestic tranquility, abuse the common defense for oil and profit, remove public welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for only our rich people and our posterity, do ordain and rewrite this Constitution of the United States of America. " "We the leftists, in order to slake our unquenchable class-envy and miserable dispositions demand all the free **** we feel we're entitled to; to be paid for by those who work hard, sacrifice, risk capital and otherwise out-produce us or we'll scream until we're blue in the face." Scream away, slappy.... America hears you and rejects you out-of-hand. I don't bow to your rich limpballs overlord or suck the cooperate dicks that you do. If you think this is about free ****, just wait till your job gets exported, and or you get sick and loose your medical coverage. Or, your retirement savings gets lost because the investment you put your savings in (what?! you have no savings?!) looses all your money. I'm quite center! You, are either quite rich or extremely stupid. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 23, 5:58*pm, pyjamarama wrote:
America hears you and rejects you out-of-hand. Know the easiest and most accurate way to detect an extremist fruitcake from either the left *or* right wings? They invariably presume to speak for "America". |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message ... Joe Irvin wrote: I read some of the reviews of the book Hookwinked ... its the same old stuff ... the West (capitalism) is the cause of all the world's problems Well, not quite true... He is a believer in capitalism -- but he contends that we currently have, for lack of a better term, a perverted or mutant form of capitalism. What does he say that perverted mutant for of capitalism is? Who is it that responds to the world when it gets into trouble? In Haitiwas it the evil West (US) or the middle eastern dictators that respondedwith help? During the industrial revolution was it the capitalist that wentout in the country side snatching people off their subsistance farms andbringing them into the towns to work in factories? ... their livingstandards were raised. Capitalism is the reason the west has such a highliving standard. Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you seeany problem.I see a problem with any book that tends to blame the West generally and theUS in particular for the world problems when the US is a nobel nation andhas done so much in the world. I know the US isn't perfect, but when itsjudged against other countries the US come out pretty good IMO. Joe, basically all I can say is to read the book. Yes, we as the American people, are good. However, there is NO denying that our government HAS tinkered with and fixed elections in several countries, committed assassinations, poked our nose where it didn't belong and thus created a lot of ill will (and worse). Like it or not and believe it or not, that is a historical fact. All of the above may be true and has to be weighed against the good the US has done in the world. IMO that scale would be weighted in favor of the good. Again, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK, you would see that Perkins IS a fan of, and believer in, capitalism (all the good things you say about capitalism above are true), but not a fan of the perverted form of capitalism we now have. Is his answer more govt regulation and control? No sense in us going back and forth like this until you read at least half the book. I am not Perkins nor can I do him justice unless I quote (and type) a large portion of the book -- and I am not a fast typist. :-) Therefore, I propose putting this thread on hold... Ok. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
Ima wrote:
How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do not support this money? I wonder about Limbaugh and the thousands of his laid-off Clear Channel colleagues, because the dichotomy is striking: Last July, just months before the radio economy went into free-fall, Limbaugh's bosses at Clear Channel, who enjoy deep ties to Texas Republicans and who have been at the forefront of promoting right-wing radio, rewarded the turbo-talker with the biggest contract in terrestrial radio history. The contract included an eye-popping 40 percent raise over his already gargantuan pay, despite the fact it's doubtful any other radio competitors could have even matched Limbaugh's old pay scale. The astronomical worth of Limbaugh's eight-year pact: $400 million. The amount of money Clear Channel execs have been trying to scrimp and save this year as they lay off thousands from the struggling company: $400 million. Ironic, don't you think? The simple truth is that Limbaugh lives in the lap of Clear Channel-backed luxury, while Clear Channel employees are being axed with abandon. And those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs are told to do the work of three or four employees. http://www.alternet.org/media/139891?page=entire |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
Mr.B1ack wrote:
And corporations are composed of WHAT exactly ? Aliens ? Robots ? Devils ? Nope. People. *Citizens*. No. Citizens can go to jail when they hurt people, corporations do not go to jail. Corporations have fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. They use this as an excuse to run amok. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 23, 9:35*am, Mr.B1ack wrote:
workers who give money to elect politicians are not the same as those corporations who funnel tens of millions to elect politicians who benefit only a small percentage of the wealth class. * *And corporations are composed of WHAT exactly ? Aliens ? * *Robots ? Devils ? * *Nope. People. * **Citizens*. Well, yes, and "citizens" are also the souls who fill our prisons. Neither corporations nor citizens are a-priori good *or* evil: It depends upon the individual; and just as we don't allow individual citizens free reign to do what they will, so unrestricted laissez- faire capitalism also cannot be permitted by a sane society. Because just as we all know that a certain percentage of of citizens will happily commit antisocial acts for their singular benefit, so do we know that many corporate bodies will do the same if given the least opportunity. The difference being that when an armed robber sticks up a 7-11 only that particular 7-11 is affected, but when corporate America gets greedy we get the recession we're just now starting to recover from: *everyone* suffers. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
About a week ago, I read somewhere that B HOs real name is Steve
Dunn. Regardless, he is NOT the President of U.S.A.! cuhulin |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
SUPERDOME.Temps in the 60s.(it's 67 degrees right now in my flower box
on doggy's front porch) Kickoff at 5:40 PM. Who dat say they gonna beat them Saints? http://www.devilfinder.com Ragland Road (MP3) cuhulin |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:26:18 -0800, dave wrote:
Ima wrote: How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do not support this money? I wonder about Limbaugh and the thousands of his laid-off Clear Channel colleagues, because the dichotomy is striking: Last July, just months before the radio economy went into free-fall, Limbaugh's bosses at Clear Channel, who enjoy deep ties to Texas Republicans and who have been at the forefront of promoting right-wing radio, rewarded the turbo-talker with the biggest contract in terrestrial radio history. The contract included an eye-popping 40 percent raise over his already gargantuan pay, despite the fact it's doubtful any other radio competitors could have even matched Limbaugh's old pay scale. The astronomical worth of Limbaugh's eight-year pact: $400 million. The amount of money Clear Channel execs have been trying to scrimp and save this year as they lay off thousands from the struggling company: $400 million. Ironic, don't you think? The simple truth is that Limbaugh lives in the lap of Clear Channel-backed luxury, while Clear Channel employees are being axed with abandon. And those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs are told to do the work of three or four employees. http://www.alternet.org/media/139891?page=entire here's another one.... FAUX News reported a $780m profit! Even though advert revenue is down all across the industry, (including at FAUX News) FAUX News posted a profit! Faux refuses to let anybody know where the extra revenue came from. Is it from drug money? So, I would guess it's from money coming from special interest to have FAUX be the mouthpiece of special interest. This is only going to get worst! |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do not support this money? Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator. Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his newsletter. There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
http://www.rense.com/general89/bs.htm
Marketers, when they dream at night, their dreams are brown. Aw haw haw haw,,, that's Good, that's Good. Enough to eff up a wet dream. cuhulin |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
|
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:55:44 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
Ima wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:35:55 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote: wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:14:57 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts wrote: On Jan 22, 8:56Â*pm, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:35 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts wrote: more like ... hmm .. "rich person". Show me in the constitution where becoming 'rich' voids ones citizenship and/or rights to free political speech or speech-equivalents. Sure is funny how the rich get all these benefits but yet feel they are above paying taxes. They need to pay their far share. It sould hurt them in the same way (not amount!) that it hurts the average folks. And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do. Proven fact |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
http://www.devilfinder.com
In Haiti Radios help save Lives Article(s) also mention cell phones.But, Radios are Always Dependable!,,, cell phones are NOT! Damn no good lefturds and Damn no good democraps hate Radios and Capitalism, they sure do love those turds (cell phones) though,,, I HATE cell phones (turds), glued to ''their'' ears! .....along the trail and they arre gonnne,,,,, Hayba lobba lobba lobba ling ling donnnng,,,,,, 'ope the cows come back hommmme,,,,,, cuhulin |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 24, 1:56*am, Twibil wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:58*pm, pyjamarama wrote: America hears you and rejects you out-of-hand. Know the easiest and most accurate way to detect an extremist fruitcake from either the left *or* right wings? They invariably presume to speak for "America". So the growing majorities in every major poll who are fed up to the teeth with Obama's radical leftist agenda are now "extremist fruitcakes", troll-boy? LOL! |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:55:44 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote: How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do not support this money? Murdoch ? He makes a lot of money selling product in America. He doesn't want us to go broke. BWE--HAHAHAHA He makes money servicing dingbat conservatives who have NO fundamental history of helping Americans. Now certain ultra-'liberal' interests - long-time America-haters ... would LOVE to see us crippled so we couldn't afford any more 'imperialism'. By "liberal american haters"---do you mean the ones who supplied the intellectual basis for this nation, who fought conservative racism and Segregation, abuse of the elderly, children and women for generations? You need to read history and you'll find out that conservatism and loonytarian bull**** has the historical onus of being the cause of our American problems It is you you have to read history ... todays so called liberal is in no way comparable to the classical liberal of the Framers of the US Constitution. I'll agree that the Framers were liberals at the time, but if you want to compare them to todays liberals you have to compare the American Revolution with another revolution during the same time period ... the French Revolution. This makes the American revolution very conservative compared to French Revolution. Using the conservative/liberal comparison is to try and hide the racism/segrgation of the Democratic party ... it wasn't the Repulican presidential candidate who sat in a church with a bigot preacher for 20 years and tried to bail himself out with his 'more perfect union' speech which he still tried to defend Rev Wright ... "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother" ... eventully Obama did chuck him under the bus ... todays liberalism advocates dependence on the central govt, hardly the classical liberals position of the framers of the US Constitution who believed in limited govt with enumerated powers. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On Jan 25, 11:45*am, Rick Saunders wrote:
America hears you and rejects you out-of-hand. Know the easiest and most accurate way to detect an extremist fruitcake from either the left *or* right wings? They invariably presume to speak for "America". So the growing majorities in every major poll who are fed up to the teeth with Obama's radical leftist agenda are now "extremist fruitcakes", troll-boy? Whoops! Reading comprehension (1) *and* non-sequitur (2) problems! 1. Nobody said that except you. Writing your own text and attributing it to someone else has a name: "Straw Man Argument". And it's not a compliment. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) 2. This is what happens when a fruitloop chooses his (?) reply without reference to whether or not it fits. See below for a second example. LOL! Ya see, it's generally inappropriate to pretend laughter after you've just shot yourself in the foot. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On 1/25/10 14:52 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:23:52 -0600, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 1/25/10 10:12 , wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:36:28 -0600, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do not support this money? Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator. Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his newsletter. There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid. Well, it's like the old saying says: You can fool some of the people some of the time---but a conservative only needs to be fed compliments and legitimize their beliefs and their happy as clams. Yes, because only Conservatives are naive. Must be some reason why an entire belief system would oppose nearly all modern change for the better, like voting rights, civil rights, womens rights, childrens rights....and fight viciously for policies, ideas and socially failed beliefs so hard. Check your history. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights and childrens rights were all passed by Republican majorities, while Democrats fought viciously fought them. Start with the Civil Rights act of 1964. That'll keep you occupied for a while. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
|
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
|
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
On 1/25/10 19:48 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote: And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do. Proven fact TOo true The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles According to the IRS: 86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. 97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. 50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners. From the Wall Street Journal: "Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make. So what? Since they own 80% of all the wealth--I'd say they're getting off cheap. Thankfully, what you say isn't incumbent on the rest of us. |
Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
US to lift 21 year ban on Haggis.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/t-news/2436912/posts Those Queers who banned Haggis don't know sh.t!!! HAGGIS! HAGGIS! HAGGIS! cuhulin, the HAGGIS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com