Propaganda at its finest

[birdog1960]

I do appreciate how the sole socialist in Congres is waxing nostalgic about American history & democracy.

your ideologic brother in arms argued quite recently that our founders were selfishly motivated profiteers...and no one disagreed. if you buy this premise, one must conclude that this is the legacy you so desperately want continued

[DC Tom]

Sanders nailed it. I don't see anyone disputing the actual data here or elsewhere.

 

I would...but I lack the time and the interest. Whatever "actual data" is in that article has been shredded, hashed, stomped on, and pureed into near unrecognizability, as should be obvious to anyone capable of a shred of critical thought...

 

 

...and it's you and conner blindly accepting everything that article spoon-feeds you. What a shocker.

[GG]

your ideologic brother in arms argued quite recently that our founders were selfishly motivated profiteers...and no one disagreed. if you buy this premise, one must conclude that this is the legacy you so desperately want continued

 

Perhaps you should channel Oliver Stone and quiver at the thought of anyone thinking that greed is good. So while you & your likeminded invertebrates choose to ignore history of mankind because some German philosopher with mother issues told you that rich people are evil, then I can't help you. Tom was right, this country, continent and everything you enjoy and take for granted was built on man's predilection for entrepreneurial gain. In your parlance, it's greed. In mine it's progress.

 

If US capitalist system is so bad, why do the world's best & brightest still clamor to come here? Maybe you haven't noticed that in your wild misuse of oligarchy, but the instances of family dynasties in the US exist only in the realm of politics (and much more so on the left side of that wild spectrum), not in business.

 

But I doubt you'll see Bernie Sanders pointing that out.

[Magox]

Misery loves company....

[ieatcrayonz]

i don't support greed on either "side". undue influence from unelected persons on any governmental policy is destructive. why don't we remove that straw man from the argument and discuss oligarchy on its merits or evils.

Oligarchy's merits are few but if you're smart enough to take advantage of them you can make $$$$$. It creates insecurity among the powerful which can be exploited. They know they made their money illegitimately so they become insecure.

 

When they are insecure they will pay $$$$ for anything that makes them feel more secure. The money means nothing to them. They can always get more. The smallest things can make them feel more secure. I make 12 figures annually by setting their women up with Beerboy and the like; thus you can see when I say "the smallest things" I really mean it.

 

Contrast this with hippy commies like Bernie Sanders running everything. Those losers have no idea what to do. They just steal what is already there and let the foundation go to pot. At least the oligarchs know how to continuosly rip us off for generations. The commies do it all in one generation then get pissed that no one is producing any more. Well, duh. They are very stupid from all the pot they smoke. It is more difficult to take advantage of them for $$$$ gain because they're very strange and their tastes change from moment to moment. They go along with what the crowd tells them because they are stoned losers. That is why they smoke pot in the first place.

 

Commie hippies are not insecure in the strictest sense. Oligarchs have all of this self doubt which can be exploited. Hippies do not have self doubt. They are completely aware of their own worthlessness. All you get is the woe is me stuff. The most you can do is slap together some kind of up with people scam. And their attention span is for stojan. Basically if you have more than a billion or two and the hippie commies are coming into power you're best off converting it to playdium and burying it under your polo pitch.

 

Capitalism is the best answer but the oligarchs and the hippy commies always seem to undermine true capitalism. It sucks, but not if you find a way to deal with it.

[Alaska Darin]

i don't support greed on either "side".

Sure you do. You're an unabashed liberal who blindly votes for anyone with a (D) next to their name. This is despite the overwhelming evidence that neither party practices what the preach.

Undue influence from unelected persons on any governmental policy is destructive.

Let me know when you figure out how to remove it when there's so much money/power involved - especially when your political philosophy is considered.

why don't we remove that straw man from the argument and discuss oligarchy on its merits or evils.

Because it's a waste of time. The Senate is a millionaire's club for a reason. The House regularly votes themselves benefits that aren't available to the citizens who elect them. Your answer is going to be more government, which is the very foundation of the problem.

[ieatcrayonz]

Sure you do. You're an unabashed liberal who blindly votes for anyone with a (D) next to their name. This is despite the overwhelming evidence that neither party practices what the preach.

 

Let me know when you figure out how to remove it when there's so much money/power involved - especially when your political philosophy is considered.

 

Because it's a waste of time. The Senate is a millionaire's club for a reason. The House regularly votes themselves benefits that aren't available to the citizens who elect them. Your answer is going to be more government, which is the very foundation of the problem.

Thank you Mr. Limbaw.

[Alaska Darin]

Thank you Mr. Limbaw.

You're welcome, Mr. Gretzky.

[ieatcrayonz]

You're welcome, Mr. Gretzky.

I don't get it.

 

Wait, now I get it. You're calling me Canadian. I'm more secure than an oligarch though so no worries.

 

Anyway, remember when the Prime Minister of Canada was a dude named Pierre Cardin? That would have been more annoying to call me. French Canadians are even more insulting.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I don't get it.

 

Wait, now I get it. You're calling me Canadian. I'm more secure than an oligarch though so no worries.

 

Anyway, remember when the Prime Minister of Canada was a dude named Pierre Cardin? That would have been more annoying to call me. French Canadians are even more insulting.

I always thought you were Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

[Rob's House]

Sanders nailed it. I don't see anyone disputing the actual data here or elsewhere. how does it not bother all these patriotic, freedom loving ideologues that money and consequently power is becoming more and more concentrated in a few hands? every further step in this directions further cheapens the already miniscule value of a single vote. i would wager that almost no one on this board has ever even met any of the ultras, yet they effectively run our world with little oversight and no input from us. how can anyone support oligarchy or corporatocricy? yet, i see it supported here, over and over. talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

 

It's interesting that you're so concerned about the concentration of wealth among the rich who are comprised of millions of different people all with different interests and influences, and your solution is to give even more power to a monolithic government that already has more power than "the rich" and who seemingly at will can be bought and sold by said rich.

 

These rich people are accountable to some extent to their customers as well as to the government who can prop up a corporation if it's rich handlers have cronies in DC (think GM) or dissolve one that doesn't. Who does the government answer to?

 

And since we are in a global economy how far are you willing to go to hamstring these rich before they go abroad and take the income your lovely government has been taxing with them along with the high paying jobs that still exist?

[Rob's House]

Uhm yeah. I'll bite. Name (1) what their agenda is, and (2) a few of the tactics they purportedly use that I supposedly fall for. I suppose it's entirely impossible that the right wing of this country is just a bunch of rambling retards and I absolutely refuse to let a group of rambling retards run this country unchallenged.

 

Disgust at the crazy right wing (Palin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Rove and their zombie followers) is far more of a motivator than any of the underwhelming things the left has done to try to fix this country.

 

The Joe Wilson affair with the reports of Iraq attempting to get nuclear material from Niger was the catalyst (one might even say foundation) of the vitriolic "Bush Lied People Died!!!" hysteria that dominated politics for the better part of a decade. It was based on media manipulation of facts and outright lies, it snowballed, and you jumped on board head first without even knowing the recent (much less distant) history of your own movement of which you've sworn undying allegiance.

[birdog1960]

It's interesting that you're so concerned about the concentration of wealth among the rich who are comprised of millions of different people all with different interests and influences, and your solution is to give even more power to a monolithic government that already has more power than "the rich" and who seemingly at will can be bought and sold by said rich.

 

These rich people are accountable to some extent to their customers as well as to the government who can prop up a corporation if it's rich handlers have cronies in DC (think GM) or dissolve one that doesn't. Who does the government answer to?

 

And since we are in a global economy how far are you willing to go to hamstring these rich before they go abroad and take the income your lovely government has been taxing with them along with the high paying jobs that still exist?

the government is meant to answer to the voting public and i agree, all too often it doesn't. is the answer then to give up and let unelected wealth, influence and power run unchecked or fix the system to make it work as designed? it won't be easy but we should at least try. if it still doesn't work, then the system should be called a failure, scrapped and replaced.

[whateverdude]

As long as the rule of law is upheld and the constitutions is respected who cares

[birdog1960]

As long as the rule of law is upheld and the constitutions is respected who cares

you really see the constitution as black and white? the justices don't. how many 5-4 supreme court decisions have there been?

[Rob's House]

the government is meant to answer to the voting public and i agree, all too often it doesn't. is the answer then to give up and let unelected wealth, influence and power run unchecked or fix the system to make it work as designed? it won't be easy but we should at least try. if it still doesn't work, then the system should be called a failure, scrapped and replaced.

 

No, the solution is to have a constitutional Republic to protect the rights of the people but without allowing the government to become a player in persuit of it's own interests.

 

Think of the government as the police. Would you want the same people that own the police station to own the stores and services, or do you think that might lead to more corruption than it was designed to prevent?

 

you really see the constitution as black and white? the justices don't. how many 5-4 supreme court decisions have there been?

 

Most 5-4 decisions are the product of activist judges who think the constitution says whatever they think it should. The reason the amendment process takes an overwhelming majority is because the constitution speaks to the fundamental framework, and whereas need for certain changes may arise, those need to be clearly needed, rather than just preferred by a bare minority or handful of justices.

[/dev/null]

Uhm yeah. I'll bite. Name (1) what their agenda is, and (2) a few of the tactics they purportedly use that I supposedly fall for. I suppose it's entirely impossible that the right wing of this country is just a bunch of rambling retards and I absolutely refuse to let a group of rambling retards run this country unchallenged.

 

Disgust at the crazy right wing (Palin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Rove and their zombie followers) is far more of a motivator than any of the underwhelming things the left has done to try to fix this country.

 

1 - Agenda: In general, increase the power of the state and limit the rights of the individual. In practice, whatever the flavor of the month that advances the power of the state

2 - Tactics: Divide and conquer. Create such disdain for the other guys (you know, that "crazy right wing" you speak of) that you don't notice or care about the wrongs your own team

[birdog1960]

No, the solution is to have a constitutional Republic to protect the rights of the people but without allowing the government to become a player in persuit of it's own interests.

 

Think of the government as the police. Would you want the same people that own the police station to own the stores and services, or do you think that might lead to more corruption than it was designed to prevent?

 

 

 

 

Most 5-4 decisions are the product of activist judges who think the constitution says whatever they think it should. The reason the amendment process takes an overwhelming majority is because the constitution speaks to the fundamental framework, and whereas need for certain changes may arise, those need to be clearly needed, rather than just preferred by a bare minority or handful of justices.

i'll bet that you're more likely to label judges activist that don't share your views. doesn't make it true. law is rarely absolute. if it were, there would be no need for juries or more than 1 supreme court justice.

[whateverdude]

you really see the constitution as black and white? the justices don't. how many 5-4 supreme court decisions have there been?

 

If you are asking whether I believe the Constitution is a "living breathing document" open to the popular interpretive change of the day and implemented by the whims of activist Justices. I don't

[Rob's House]

i'll bet that you're more likely to label judges activist that don't share your views. doesn't make it true. law is rarely absolute. if it were, there would be no need for juries or more than 1 supreme court justice.

 

The constitution says what it says, whether I like it or not. And actually you are wrong. For example, I don't see a reason for government to interfere with adult men voluntarily sodomizing each other in the privacy of their own homes. I don't want to see it or hear it, but whatever. There is, however, no constitutional provision that guarantees that right, so whereas I agree with their cause, I disagree with the ruling.

 

But thank you for projecting your own traits on me.