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
 

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.