"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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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...

"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.