On Jan 22, 7:34*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Well, to the extent that the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed on his watch,
yes.

Wikipedia:
"The final bill resolving the differences was passed
in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House:
362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into
law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."

Sounds rather... bipartisan to me.

However, I would respectfully suggest that you do not overlook the fact
that George W. had EIGHT years to do something about it -- and did NOTHING.

Um, perhaps because he agreed with it?

In any event, partisanship has nothing to do with it. Corporatocracy has
EVERYTHING to do with it.

So your implicit assertion is that Americans are too stupid
to know when they're being fed a line of crap? Though given
that Obama was elected, I just might have to give you that
one.

I'm apalled that you believe that Big Brother should
have, the right to dictate how and when Americans
-- remember, this SCOTUS opinion expressly included
those bastions of individual thought known as 'unions' --
are permitted to express their opinion about political
candidates. Free political speech is not free if
the government can dictate when and where you
exercise it.

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.

WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone
who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked.

On 1/22/10 15:50 , Stevie Nichts wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:32�pm, "Joe 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 ...



All broadcast advertising must conform to the sponsorship
identification statutes, which require the entity purchasing the
time to be identified. So, that issue is already provided for.




whats wrong with that? �It seems everyone starts with the assumptions that
corporations are bad/evil.

Standard liberal fa Corporations are, by definition,
evil. Also note their breezy dismissal of unions (and
the many, many left-wing 501 and 527 groups) as
somehow powerless before the might of the Corporations.

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:10:35 -0800, dave wrote:


Libertarian Socialist actually.

Sorry, but considering the failures of loonytarianism last century, I
wouldn't consider that a positive ideology.

Libertarian Socialism is a form of anarchism. It has nothing to do with
the Libertarian Party.

False Flag ''Operation(s)''?

Limeyland has raised threat level to Severe.
According to this evenings All Bout Communism (ABC) tv Nut Case News,,,,
CIA (CIA is Al Qaeda) might be fixin to ''do sumpin''
cuhulin
.................................................. ..
Hayba Lobba Lobba Lobba, Ding Ding Donnnng,,,,, Hayba Lobba Lobba
Lobba, Ding Ding Dinnnnng,,,,,
.................................................. ...

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"?

The OP listed FIVE people on his bad president list and apparently you
think that's just fine and that he is a fine fellow. And yes, I truly
and legitimately feel the OP is being naive at best or a simpleton at
worst for not saving a spot on his list for W.

How hypocritical of you...

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 and b)
most (if not all) of the money the union has comes from dues of their
*blue collar* members, by definition not the richest people in the
neighborhood.

And what YOU overlook is the
simple fact that unions and other left-wing special interests
(why the scare quotes? Do you seriously doubt they exist?)

Um, Stevie, nothing to do with doubting their existence. If you look
closely, I put it in quotes because, well, I was *quoting YOU*. Please
try not to punish someone for the -proper- use of punctuation.

have the ear of the national media to a far, FAR greater extent
than BigRichEvilKorporations.

Yes, I agree they may have the media's 'ear' but the
BigRichEvilKorporations have the MONEY -- and as we all learned from
Johnny Z. years ago, "Money talks and bull**** walks". (Quote marks used
because I am directly quoting John Z. DeLorean, late of GM).

And if you see no problem with letting large corporations have all that
power, IMHO you are dumber than you look.

So the choice is between Big Brother dictating how, when,
and where we can engage in political free speech versus
trusting that Americans are intelligent enough to deal with
all that free speech? Your contempt for the American voter
is palpable, possibly eclipsed by your elitism and arrogance.

Sadly, I believe it has very little to do with free speech but has
EVERYTHING to do with getting the best politicians that money can buy.

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.

Furthermore, I really was not alluding to the intelligence of the
American voters, but seeing as you read that into it, let me comment...

First, it's no secret that the American educational system has been
falling apart for years, *many* books having been written on the dumbing
of America.

Finally, the dumbing (and numbing) of the populace as alluded to in
'1984' and 'Brave New World' seems to be coming frightfully close to the
mark.

Don't forget to take your Soma pill tonight...and don't forget to read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins (also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man"). The first half of his book explains much more
eloquently than I could ever hope to, the evils of the Corporatocracy.

"dave" wrote in message
news
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.

"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.

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

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!.

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.