While complete dictatorial
power is their goal, the radical Right has been enjoying its seizure of the House
of Representatives by suppressing democracy. In 2012 more Americans voted for
Democratic representation than Republican, but gerrymandering by the Right
overruled the will of the American public.
Now the radical Right is
salivating for seizing control of the Senate this year. They might get it too.
Ignorance, massive Right Wing corporate media propaganda, and voter apathy are
aiding and abetting the Right’s war on democracy.
Thanks to corporate media,
the public only hears from the two corporatist parties. We hear very little outside that narrow framing of our politics. In fact we almost never hear or see the words "corporatist" or "corporate media", for that matter.
Looking past that darkness, I’d like to share some
light of truth out there in an interesting interview at the Nation. I gathered a few insightful remarks below:
===
Bernie Sanders: 'I Am Prepared
to Run for President of the United
States
"What's most important is
this idea of a political revolution," says the Independent Senator from Vermont
...Somebody has got to
represent the working-class and the middle-class of this country in standing up
to the big-money interests who have so much power over the economic and
political life of this country. So I am prepared to run for president of the United States
There is today more and more
alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the
modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to
be "independent," whatever that may mean. And the number of people
who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In
that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.
But there is no question
that the Democratic Party in general remains far too dependent on big-money
interests, that it is not fighting vigorously for working-class families, and
that there are some members of the Democratic Party whose views are not
terribly different from some of the Republicans.
I think one of the great
tragedies that we face today politically, above and beyond the simple economic
reality of the collapse of the middle-class, more people living in poverty,
growing gap between the rich and poor, the high cost of education - all those
objective, painful realities in American society - the more significant reality
from a political perspective is that most people have given up on the political
process. They understand the political deck is stacked against them. They think
there is no particular reason for them to come out and vote – and they don’t.
In Vermont North
Korea United States
...Why are so many people
voting against their own economic interests? It happens because the Democrats
have not been strong in making it clear which side they are on, not been strong
in taking on Wall Street and corporate America, which is what Roosevelt did in
the 1930s.
The bad news is that people
like the Koch Brothers can spend huge sums of money to create groups like the
Tea Party. The good news is that, once people understand the right-wing
extremist ideology of the Koch Brothers, they are not going to go along with
their policies. In terms of fundamental economic issues: job creation, a high
minimum wage, progressive taxation, affordable college education — the vast
majority of people are on our side.
I think what people are
looking for is leadership that is prepared to take on the big money interests
(to deliver that message). That's not what we're seeing, by and large, from
most Democrats.
===
Is it possible for a liberal
to actually run for president of the American Corporate Empire? Sure, as far as
Big Money tolerates it, (yeah, we know how far that would go) but can he win? I
doubt it, but it’s a nice fantasy.
Run, Bernie, Run
Posts
69 comments:
If they got worried about him they'd just kill him. I hope he does.
Well, that just made my decision in 2016 easier...
Only a handful of people will vote for self avowed socialist Sanders.
But he is right about one thing, dissatisfaction with both mainstream parties is leaving a leadership vacuum that will likely bill filled by outsiders. People who are for personal freedom, economic nonintervention, and small and unintrusive government are going to start voting libertarian. What will liberal socialists do? Keep loyally voting Democrat most likely.
The GOP brings little to its rank and file voters, which is how GOP voters like it. In fact, most GOP voters are disgusted with the GOP for growing government at record rates during the Bush years (myself included). So its an easy switch to libertarians within the GOP or even The Libertarian Party. For "liberals" that isn't so easy. The Democrat power base depends on the social welfare state it has created. To leave that welfare state - means the possible loss of it.
I don't see Democrats willing to jump ship if the power loss to the Dem Party could cost them say... social security or medicare.
And make no mistake, the GOP and Libertarians would join hands at the first opportunity and strike those programs down.
So my point is this, there can be long term an alliance between the GOP Conservatives and the Libertarians. I can't see one working between the socialist left and the old school Democrats.
Free0352: "And make no mistake, the GOP and Libertarians would join hands at the first opportunity and strike those programs down."
You speak as if you guys haven't been joined at the hip for some time now.
By the way, before the illusion of free markets becomes apparent to even your most fervent believers, I hope the "invisible hand" washes first.
I have never been able to figure out why anyone that calls themselves a libertarian would want to be in the GOP when the GOP doesn't give a shit about individual liberties. All they care about is no restrictions and regulations on corporations and no taxes on corporations and the rich!!
I laugh every time I hear Ron Paul called a libertarian because he is anti-abortion which disqualifies him from being a libertarian. But he is a member of the GOP and their policies like anti-abortion and other policies that infringe on individual rights are SOP!! The only individual right they are for is the right to buy any kind of weapon without any restrictions.
So somebody tell me why libertarians are in the GOP, is it just guns and low taxes?? (Everyone thinks they mean low taxes for them, but it is only for the rich. As Leona Helmsley [the queen of mean] said, "Only the little people pay taxes,")
You speak as if you guys haven't been joined at the hip for some time now.
That is your preconceived notion.
Truth is, Libertarians are willing to work with others to accomplish their legislative goals. That might mean protections against established religion or gay rights when working with liberals, or working with conservatives to dismantle the nanny state.
That's what's cool about being a third party - you're willing to take help from those who are willing to give it, and reject ideas you don't like.
I have never been able to figure out why anyone that calls themselves a libertarian would want to be in the GOP when the GOP doesn't give a shit about individual liberties.
Agreed. That's probably why I'm not in the GOP.
I'll say this for the GOP, they do support gun rights a lot more so that Democrats. That's about it though. I can't think of one liberty the Democrats respect. Sadly both parties have a terrible record of supporting liberty, but that doesn't mean libertarians won't work with them or through them to get the job done. It can't be about us vs. them, as a third party we will have to partner with the mainstream parties... at least for the time being.
laugh every time I hear Ron Paul called a libertarian because he is anti-abortion which disqualifies him from being a libertarian
30% of the Libertarian Party is against abortion on demand. About 10% of the Democrat Party is also, while about 15% of the GOP is proabortion. I don't think any stance on any one issue disqualifies someone from anything.
Free0352: "Libertarians are willing to work with others to accomplish their legislative goals."
As I've mentioned a few times already, until the Libertarian Party denounces corporate personhood as part of their platform, as the Green Party has, it'll never even show up on my radar screen.
From the Green Party's 2010 platform under Human Rights:
"We propose the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
The rights established by this Constitution and the laws of the United States of America are exclusively the rights of living, breathing humans, citizens of this country or residing therein. No corporation or other type of association or organization can have the status of a 'legal person,' and thus cannot derive rights from such status."
If libertarianism can match it, show me. Bernie Sanders has.
it'll never even show up on my radar screen.
I guess we'll all just have to get on with our lives without you Jeff.
Your little amendment just unintentionally outlawed the right to use personal property in an electoral communication. Somebody better tell Michael Moore (and more importantly Miramax) that if old Sanders gets his way - he'll be out of business. Whoops. I'm guessing lawyers didn't write that, some kid in a basement did. Its not that corporations are people jeff, its that they belong to people.
Granted Jeff I doubt that was your intent, but that is exactly what the amendment you just brought up would do.
Political documentaries are released by corporations, newspapers are released by corporations, magazines are released by corporations, even blogger here is a corporation. If you rule they have no legal civil rights protection - any politician or bureaucrat can come along and ban what they are doing with the stroke of a pen.
That won't just chill free speech, that will annihilate it. I like free speech, so I'm not for it.
Free0352: "Its not that corporations are people jeff, its that they belong to people."
Right you are!...corporations are property, and property only, and should never have the same constitutional rights as human beings.
Corporate personhood is the ludicrous legal fiction that property is a person (and just as absurd as slavery's supposition that a person is property -- which, hopefully, you agree).
If you contend that corporations should have such constitutional rights, perhaps they ought to vote and have their own named representatives in Congress. "The Chair recognizes the Senator from Monsanto...from Koch Industries...from ExxonMobile...", etc.
So lets grant you the amendment. Corporations no longer have any constitutional claim to any rights what so ever. Newspapers and other media, art galleries, and websites are no longer protected by the 1st Amendment, and have no right to redress that in court because they no longer have a right to due process in court per the 5th and 14th Amendments. Government agencies can come in without so much as a scrap of paper because hey - corporations aren't people and so there is no protection against unlawful search under the 4th amendment. The NSA could easily ensconced its people in say... Google because Google isn't a person and the government can quarter troops there.
Laws have power and meaning, and before you'll get me on board you'll have to explain how the above can't happen if you got your little amendment. Because right now, I think it would.
And of course if you want that, you and hitler should go bowling.
Free0352: "So lets grant you the amendment. Corporations no longer have any constitutional claim to any rights what so ever."
No, the owners would have all the Constitutional protections of any U.S. citizen. That would obviously never be denied them.
"Newspapers and other media, art galleries, and websites are no longer protected by the 1st Amendment..."
Ditto...see answer above.
"...and have no right to redress that in court because they no longer have a right to due process in court per the 5th and 14th Amendments."
Owners and board members, executive managers and otherwise, would always have their day in court.
By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments after the American Civil War. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was a much needed reform to address African Americans' status (not corporations' status) from property to persons.
As far as invoking the 5th, at this time corporations do not have this right. However, the officers of the corporation, and its designated representatives representing the corporation, do have a right to testify and not incriminate themselves.
I thought you were a political science major? Skipped class that day, I see.
"...you'll have to explain how the above can't happen if you got your little amendment."
It'll revert back to pre-1886 and that more than dubious Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. (In actuality, though, the Court never granted personhood to corporations in that decision. It was the Court reporter's questionable headnotes that have had a horrendous affect on our democratic processes up to this day.)
It's certainly not a "little amendment", as you phrased it. It would be the bedrock and foundation needed to get corporate money out of politics and leading the way to bringing democracy back to our electoral system. It'll be thousands of times more liberating than all the so-called libertarian issues combined.
We're not talking about your intent Jeff, we're talking about Sander's proposed amendment.
"are exclusively the rights of living, breathing humans, citizens of this country or residing therein,
Exclusive is a pretty definitive word. What you said Jeff - "No, the owners would have all the Constitutional protections of any U.S. citizen" is the law for the land TODAY. "Exclusive to," means this law EXCLUDES collective organizations like... corporations, churches, unions, etc. Further, if you deny the 5th Amendment to one or all, you can therefore deny any other right to one or all. After all, they are either RIGHTS or privileges. They can't be both. What you are proposing is we turn the rights of groups like corporations, churches, unions, etc, into a list of privileges. Privileges can and often are revoked.
As for the 14th Amendment, I'm quite familiar with it. It states all people have equal protection under the law. What you are suggesting violates this, saying that only individuals have equal protection and and groups like corporations, churches, unions, will not be equally protected.
You are for a system that unequally protects. I'm not.
Free0352: "We're not talking about your intent Jeff, we're talking about Sander's proposed amendment."
Please provide "Sander's proposed amendment". I don't believe I've seen it.
"You are for a system that unequally protects."
No, I believe in a Constitution that grants those protections for living, human persons only -- not the fictitious creations licensed in those states that gave them birth.
In other words, property can never be assumed to be protected as a human being. That's totally against the Founder's intent.
Free0352: "What you are proposing is we turn the rights of groups like corporations, churches, unions, etc, into a list of privileges. Privileges can and often are revoked.
One more thing...
Let's disregard "churches" for the moment and key on corporations.
Yes!...you are correct! The issuance of corporate charters is indeed a privilege -- not a "right" -- just like your driver's license! (We've been through this several times already. When is this very simple concept, and truth, finally going to sink in for you?!?!?)
Please provide "Sander's proposed amendment". I don't believe I've seen it.
I'm talking about the proposed amendment you yourself posted. You gave me the impression Bernie Sanders supported this.
And I'm quoting direct language from the proposed amendment you posted.
No
Yes.
That may not be your intent, but your intent is irrelevant.
Constitution that grants those protections for living, human persons only
You've told me many times corporations aren't people as you just did. So if you pass an amendment that makes rights exclusive to living people, obviously corporations who are not people, but a group of people operating under a legal charter would be excluded. This is not equally protecting them or their stock holders. If you want to be for inequality that is up to you. But you can't honesty claim you are if you are not. If rights are exclusive to living breathing people only, obviously that excludes non living persons - groups like churches, corporations, unions, etc. As you have told me countless times, those aren't people - they are legal entities. Right?
Let's disregard "churches" for the moment and key on corporations.
No, I see them as linked.
The issuance of corporate charters is indeed a privilege -- not a "right"
I'm not talking about the issuance of a corporate charter. I'm talking about the right to free speech, right to press, right to assembly, right to an attorney, right to a speedy trial by jury, right to due process of law, right to equal protection under the law, among others. Do corporations have those rights, or do they not? Today they do. Should the amendment you advocate be passed, those rights would be revoked for churches, corporations, unions, etc.
I am not for that.
Free0352: "I'm talking about the proposed amendment you yourself posted."
Yes, the wording I provided came directly from the Green Party website. Although I know Sanders is a proponent of abolishing corporate personhood, I wouldn't want to claim that he supports this exact wording, although I'm confident his intention would be the same.
"So if you pass an amendment that makes rights exclusive to living people, obviously corporations who are not people, but a group of people operating under a legal charter would be excluded."
No, they'd always retain their constitutional rights as living, breathing human beings. The legal fiction of a corporate person, however, would be no more.
How many times, and how many ways, do I need to make this point to you?
"This is not equally protecting them or their stock holders."
Sure it is. (See my reply above.)
"If rights are exclusive to living breathing people only, obviously that excludes non living persons - groups like churches, corporations, unions, etc. As you have told me countless times, those aren't people - they are legal entities. Right?"
Right! Good, you're catching on...
"No, I see them as linked."
In some ways, yes. For purposes of this discussion, they're not.
"I'm not talking about the issuance of a corporate charter."
There's no way you can't. Because corporations are licensed and given approval to operate by the state, there's no avoiding the obvious: They are property. Not people.
"Do corporations have those rights, or do they not? Today they do."
Hence, I rail against corporatism and the willful highjacking of the Constitution, any and every chance I get.
In the final analysis, it's the root cause for all of our social ills and loss of democracy.
"Should the amendment you advocate be passed, those rights would be revoked for churches, corporations, unions, etc."
Exactly!...and in the spirit of what our Founders intended!
"I am not for that."
I know you're not. Why do you think I always refer to you as a tool...and a corporatist?
No, they'd always retain their constitutional rights as living, breathing human beings
Sure a stock holder of Brand X would still have a right to free speech, but his company would not.
So lets see how this could play out.
While an individual stockholder in an art gallery or the artist who paints the pictures would have freedom of speech, the gallery would not because its a corporation. Hence, the government could legally pass obscenity laws and ban the gallery's showing of what some would call offensive art...because... while the artist himself wasn't banned from painting the picture it is only the gallery who is being regulated... and after all an art gallery isn't a person and therefore has no first amendment protection.
That isn't freedom. But it isn't "corporatism!"
And its not what the founders intended at all.
You keep talking about your idealistic intent Jeff, and I keep thinking like a politician and a lawyer. I read your amendment and see all the ways it could be used to crush political opposition. Your intent may be one thing, but it would five you 180 degrees of opposite effect. Take away constitutional protections of corporate entities, and you can crush any corporation. Imagine if Richard Nixon had that kind of power? Well, pass your silly little amendment and on a long enough time line someone like him will.
Free0352: "Sure a stock holder of Brand X would still have a right to free speech, but his company would not."
Exactly!...just as it used to be pre-1886.
"So lets see how this could play out."
It would turn out being one of the most important and democracy-building amendments during our history. From that respect, it would play out to all natural persons' benefit...unless, of course, for the select few who benefit now from squelching and manipulating our democratic processes. It would bring government back to "We, the People" again.
"...and after all an art gallery isn't a person and therefore has no first amendment protection."
Yes, you're correct, not as an artificial person. Now, if the owner(s) of the gallery choose to not incorporate, and instead operate as a sole proprietorship, they'd obviously still have all the rights that they've always had and could exercise their constitutional rights any way they choose -- because, from a legal standpoint, the individuals would be the art gallery.
"And its not what the founders intended at all."
Yes, actually it is. This country's Founders, after their dealings with the monopolistic East India Company and its partnership with the English monarchy, were adamant about controlling and curtailing corporate power from the onset.
As I've mentioned to you posts ago, during those early decades of our country, corporate charters were granted for only specific spans of time (20 to 30 years, for example) and for a specific purpose (making lamps, as another example). Charters were very specific in term-length and in function. If a corporation was in violation for involving itself in political affairs, for example, it wasn't unusual for its charter to be shortened, or even revoked, by the state.
"You keep talking about your idealistic intent Jeff, and I keep thinking like a politician and a lawyer."
No, I see you more as a tool of the corporate-state.
"Take away constitutional protections of corporate entities, and you can crush any corporation."
Exactly! And as more and more corporate power is vanquished from our democratic processes, more and more democracy is returned to "We, the People".
Isn't that a beautiful thought?
"Well, pass your silly little amendment and on a long enough time line someone like [Richard Nixon] will [have more power]."
No, it'll be exactly opposite. Power will be decentralized and taken out of the hands of a few and returned to the people.
Exactly!...just as it used to be pre-1886.
Exactly. That means it would be easy to say... ban the Rachel Maddow show or a Michael Moore film. That's because its not really Rachel Maddow or Michael Moore, but MSNBC (corp.) or Mirimax and Disney (corps.) who own those programs.
They didn't do that in the 1800s and they shouldn't do it now.
Your argument brought to life, is that had George Bush banned the film "Fahrenheit 9-11," using the McCain Fiengold law as a basis on grounds that it was a corporate attempt to influence the 2004 election, that would be totally legal because it didn't violate Moore's rights but instead it was targeted at corporation Walt Disney (who owns Mirimax and Moore's film rights) and after all... they have no rights. After all, nobody would ever argue that Disney had any charter to release a political communication like Moore's 2004 film.
That isn't free speech. That's highly regulated speech.
it'll be exactly opposite. Power will be decentralized and taken out of the hands of a few and returned to the people.
Wrong, you open obvious doors to politicians to crush an opposing view. I can think of 20 ways I could use your ammendment to make it so liberals could never make a case to the public ever again, not to mention liberals could do the same. If I can dream it up, so can others.
That is basically a totalitarian domination of free speech.
Free0352: They didn't do that in the 1800s and they shouldn't do it now.
"They" didn't do "what"? Please articulate your point...if you can.
"That isn't free speech. That's highly regulated speech."
You can imagine any crazy scenario you want. In the final analysis, corporations are property and shouldn't be granted the same constitutional rights as living, breathing, human beings. The Founders were clear about this.
"I can think of 20 ways I could use your ammendment to make it so liberals could never make a case to the public ever again..."
I can think of thousands of ways that corporate abuse, malfeasance, and criminal acts have destroyed democracy, wrecked people's lives and ruined their health.
I can also think of dozens of more ways that your cockamamie libertarian philosophy, were it to take root, would facilitate the prevailing inverted totalitarianism to completely destroy what remaining vestiges of a constitutional republic that we (barely) still have.
Free0352: "That is basically a totalitarian domination of free speech."
No, the true totalitarian domination of free speech has already occurred through media consolidation, resulting in a media oligopoly in this country comprised of Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corporation, Comcast, and The Walt Disney Company. This is for just the traditional media as we know it. Now, Google and Amazon, among others, are entering the fray.
I'll take your favored "media regulation" over media domination any day. At least, then, I know I'm being presented the real picture -- instead of some corporate-state amalgamation of omissions and untruths.
But, it really is a mute point, isn't it? Since these corporations are only property, and not living and breathing human persons, they have no unalienable rights as penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and seconded by James Madison in the Bill of Rights section of our Constitution.
This cannot be argued.
"They" didn't do "what"? Please articulate your point
Have government regulate free speech.
You can imagine any crazy scenario you want
You should start. When you give people power, you have to expect they'll use it.
I can think of thousands of ways that corporate abuse
By all means, tell us exactly which corporations have banned your political speech?
If anything I can think of one corporation (blogger) whose helping you spread it!
No, the true totalitarian domination of free speech has already occurred through media consolidation, resulting in a media oligopoly in this country comprised of Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corporation, Comcast, and The Walt Disney Company. This is for just the traditional media as we know it. Now, Google and Amazon, among others, are entering the fray.
So its an oligarchy that now Google and Amazon are now entering into. Some oligarchy...
Note you are currently speaking on a corporate owned website with the potential of being read by literally billions of people.
You're so silenced...
At least, then, I know I'm being presented the real picture
The real picture presented to you by whoever happens to be in power.
That's some freedom...
The real picture presented to you by whoever happens to be in power.
That's some freedom...
...And welcome to the Corporate States of America, where the people were told by corporate media and corporatist war-mongers that we are to go to war over "nukular" aluminum tubes, Saddam's partnership with al-Qaeda and his vast stockpiles of WMDs.
Corporate wars, or at the minimum, covert destabilization and sanctions, are now being emplaced for Venezuela, Iran, and other places with oil and resources that don't follow the orders of Corporate American Government.
Corporations will always have more free speech and power than the citizens of a corporatocracy.
Corporate wars, or at the minimum, covert destabilization and sanctions, are now being emplaced for Venezuela, Iran, and other places with oil and resources that don't follow the orders of Corporate American Government.
Yawn. I'm pretty sure that's the State Department. More wild conspiracy theories. I'm positive Exxon would love to drill in Iran, but whatever...
All your tin foil hattery doesn't answer the question I asked at the beginning.
How would you keep films like Fahrenheit 9-11 from being banned if you adopted the Amendment Jeff linked?
Your lack of an answer is telling.
You either don't know, or don't care.
But look at what Dave's really saying here - "Corporations have too much influence on government! Make Government -the tool of those corporations I hate- way more powerful!"
That don't make no sense.
The reason “That don't make no sense”, is because Free’s corrupting my words again, pretending to be “quoting” me, as he spews out of his warped image of what he wants my point to be.
Never fails. He can’t help himself. It’s the authoritarian way, dictating the meaning of others’ words so they can bat down their straw man.
If you want to know what Dave is saying, quote Dave’s actual words instead of playing the spin and distraction game.
"Corporations have too much influence on government!” These really are my words and they reflect our ongoing contention that corporate “Free Speech” money is corruption, and destructive to the principles of a constitutional democratic republic.
“Make Government -the tool of those corporations I hate- way more powerful!" These are Free’s, and only Free’s, words.
If Free were an honest man, (yeah, a big if,) he would convey his acknowledgement of our argument that in order to uphold our Constitution, Government MUST be more powerful than the corporations engaged in the commerce that the government is charged to regulate. Now THAT makes sense. Well, not to the Radical Right Bubble Cult.
But Free, like all his fellow extreme ideologues, can’t deal with any rational thinking or information that doesn’t conform to the beliefs nurtured and mandated by the RRBC.
Ergo we see more of Free’s “What Dave’s really saying...” bullshit.
So if Free can’t make sense of our rational perspective, we can at least offer in return for his misunderstanding, our complete understanding of his line of bullshit.
What do we bet none of this “don't make no sense” to Free?
More facts that don’t fit in Free’s RRBC:
“covert destabilization and sanctions, are now being emplaced for Venezuela, Iran, and other places with oil and resources that don't follow the orders of Corporate American Government.”
Free observes: More wild conspiracy theories. I'm positive Exxon would love to drill in Iran
LOL! He kindly offered one such “wild conspiracy” in his dismissal of verifiable facts. Classic!
Of course Exxon would love to drill in Iran, and is doing its best to manipulate our government into putting that conspiracy into action.
Cheney’s oily “energy policy” in Iraq didn’t pan out well for that particular conspiracy, but his cronies still conspire along the same agenda, and Free knows it.
Free0352: "When you give people power, you have to expect they'll use it."
Exactly! And it's with, "We the People", that all power should start and end -- not with "corporate persons", that are nothing more than the property of living, breathing, human beings.
"By all means, tell us exactly which corporations have banned your political speech?"
You are kidding, right? Many have been censored through the corporate media when the message is outside the mainstream idea of acceptable talking points. If a dozen tea party protestors gather outside the White House, it makes all the local news. If several thousand protest the Iraqi occupation, there's never a word about it. Omission is no different than banning. The net result is the same.
"So its an oligarchy that now Google and Amazon are now entering into. Some oligarchy..."
Yes, you're right, it is some oligarchy!
As we're spoon-fed tidbits of nonsense, and offered fake news and lies and distortions in our print and electronic media, Amazon is making a bid to completely obliterate the publishing houses and Google the free Internet. It's right around the corner.
"The real picture presented to you by whoever happens to be in power."
So, I'm guessing that you believe that the corporate media that dominates today is giving you the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
"That's some freedom..."
When do you believe this nation had the most freedom? Don't evade the question (which you usually do when you can't legitimately answer without lying).
"How would you keep films like Fahrenheit 9-11 from being banned if you adopted the Amendment Jeff linked?"
You mean it wasn't already restricted ("ommitted") by the corporate media? That's news to me.
It wouldn't matter! You know why? Because everyone would be equal in the "marketplace of ideas" without it. Nobody's great wealth could be used as a bigger megaphone than mine. Money would be completely out of the political game, thus rendering corruption as passé and irrelevant. Which, in case you haven't figured it out, is the whole point.
If you desired real freedom, you'd agree with me.
Free’s corrupting my words again
Is that what you call me clarifying your bullshit?
You want a government that is more powerful, and one of those new powers would be regulating speech - specifically who has free speech and how they can fund the speech. That's what you want Dave. Quit trying to truss it up in a populist dress. Its the same old statist pig no matter what gown you dress it in.
These really are my words and they reflect our ongoing contention that corporate “Free Speech” money is corruption,
Yes. I am quoting you. See? You said you don't like free speech. I just quoted you saying it. Obviously if the government controls who can speak, it isn't fucking free now is it?
Apparently when Mirimax (Huge fucking company) wants to make Fahrenheit 9-11 - a film which bashed the Bush admin to no end in a run up to the 2004 election with the clear goal of influencing the election - you find that "corruption."
I don't. I think Mirimax should be able to make any damned film they want for the express purpose of influencing politics in America - whenever they want - and release it wherever they can. I think Koch industries or George Soros should be able to spend 10 trillion dollars on all the attack ads their hustlers can churn out prior to November. I don't care. The Constitution is very clear that Koch Industries can do that. It says NO LAW. It basically says no exceptions. Get it?
You apparently think this is corruption.
Its not, its free speech. I take the Constitution seriously when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
It doesn't say "Unless you are a multi-national corporation." It doesn't say "Unless you happen to be a rich guy." It doesn't say "Unless the speech is paid for by a company." It doesn't say "Even if its not fair Tyco has a hell of a lot louder voice than Dave Dubya."
It says SHALL NOT. Think of it as a big fucking stop sign for everything you are arguing here to do.
Its not the Corporations are people. Its that Congress can't make a law against speech - even if its a company, a person... or a fucking horse. If Mr. Ed wants to buy 20 continuous hours of air time to bash Hillary Clinton, his equine ass can do that. The law is cut and dried. Fair wasn't mentioned in the 1st Amendment once. It says freedom, it doesn't say equality of speech. That means some entities can use their money to be a whole lot louder than an average individual. Awe shucks. Don't like it, move to Cuba.
To abridge speech is beyond corrupt, its an actual crime. It breaks a law. You want to uphold the Constitution? Great. Start by MAKING NO LAW that abridges speech. None, zip, zero restrictions. That is what upholding the Constitution looks like, and thats why you can't admit what you want to do would silence voices. When you frame it like that, I'm not twisting your words around, I'm telling people what happens when statists for this get heir way.
If there is an "if" or "but" anywhere for any kind of speech - you are not upholding the Constitution. Even if its the evil, nasty, mean old companies making the speech. Or churches, or unions, or individuals. Doesn't matter who is making the speech or how they pay for it. Period.
Now I'll stand by for the retarded "Fire in a theater," or "Child porn is free speech then," argument that is obviously not applicable. Everyone knows what free speech is, except apparently socialists like you - so I'll nip that one in the bud before it blooms. We are talking about the very nuts and bolts of a free society, and that is POLITICAL SPEECH. The kind you'd like to see limited.
That isn't upholding the Constitution, that is shredding it. Its anti-American, anti-democratic, and spits on the Republic and echos of the Monarchy we threw off our backs in 1775.
When do you believe this nation had the most freedom?
Its easier to tell you when it was the least free. Before the 13th Amendment was passed. After that, it slid back into the dirt with the 16th and 17th Amendments.
So all in all, I'd say the scale has balanced. White men were certainly the most free in 1781 and I'd like to get back to that, only for all Americans and not have it based on property ownership, race, or sex.
And if you'd like to bring up corporate law of the 18th century, I'd note it was also legal to beat your wife and own a black man during this time frame.
We've improved this country since, and that includes corporate law Jeff.
Oh, boy, I found one honest sentence from Free. “Yes. I am quoting you. See?”
Well done! But what happens then?
Why, Free’s corrupting my words again, of course, as he claims to be “clarifying your bullshit”?
You said you don't like free speech. I just quoted you saying it..... That's what you want Dave..
Nope. Back to the same old lies.
And here I thought I was saying something about “our ongoing contention that corporate “Free Speech” money is corruption”.
That means we don’t like corruption, but Free’s corrupted thinking can’t wrap his head around that concept.
You apparently think this is corruption.
Its not, its free speech.
And there we have it. Corporate bribery is “free speech” for “We the corporations” as provided in the Bill of Rights.
Except I don’t recall that being in the Constitution.
The reality is every American has, and would continue to have, his right to free speech if corporate money was banned from public elections and political campaigns. Just as every man has the equality of one vote, so should every man have the right to equally contribute to his party or candidate. If corporations have that right, it is corruption. Why? A corporation is not a person, it is wealth. And it exponentially multiplies the power of private wealth in public policy making. Wealth is represented more than people. Democracy is replaced by corporatocracy.
Now if you want a government and nation that is ruled by “divine right of wealth”, like Free does, don’t pretend individuals still have equal rights. They don’t, and won’t.
White men were certainly the most free in 1781 and I'd like to get back to that, only for all Americans and not have it based on property ownership,...
Exactly! That is precisely what corporate "free speech" is all about.
Free0352: "I think Koch industries or George Soros should be able to spend 10 trillion dollars on all the attack ads their hustlers can churn out prior to November. I don't care."
I know, and all the readers of this blog know, that you don't care. You've made this very clear. It's the evidence of the corporatist in you.
"The Constitution is very clear that Koch Industries can do that. It says NO LAW. It basically says no exceptions."
It does? Please provide the actual wording by copying and pasting this little tidbit.
As I've mentioned many times, the rights as expressed in the U.S. Constitution apply only to living and breathing human beings -- not to cats or dogs, not to Gray Wolves or Red Wolves, not to Ocelots or Cougars, not to horses, like or unlike Mr. Ed, and certainly not to any form of property as defined by human beings. This applies to corporations, as much as it applies to your dog or mine.
If constitutional rights did apply to animals, as you claim, I think the beef industry in this country would be in a lot of trouble! Slavery, after all, is illegal. The Thirteenth Amendment is quite clear about this.
"I'd like to get back to that, only for all Americans and not have it based on property ownership, race, or sex." [bold print my own.]
Ditto! Dave Dubya already, and aptly, pointed out the hypocrisy in your double standards.
"...if you'd like to bring up corporate law of the 18th century,..."
It was technically, state law, as applied to property licensure and property rights. State laws were very clear about the roles and limitations of corporations back then -- not only in function, but also longevity. They were quite specific about these things.
"...I'd note it was also legal to beat your wife and own a black man during this time frame.
This, not surprisingly from you, is irrelevant to the topic. Although, admittedly, slavery was legal and women's rights were miniscule at the time.
By the way, speaking of irrelevancy, did you know that in 1873, slavery was "abolished" in Puerto Rico? There was a huge caveat, however. The slaves were not immediately emancipated, but had to buy their own freedom. Damn Puerto Ricans! So unfair!
Dave,
Exactly! That is precisely what corporate "free speech" is all about.
Congratulations, you've won then. Once upon a time you had to own property to vote in many states -something I oppose -, that is no longer the case. Moreover, you have never had to own property to conduct free speech, nor do you today. Last I checked, corporations do not get to vote.
So you've won and there are no plans to change any of this. Congratulations.
Jeff,
You've made this very clear. It's the evidence of the corporatist in you.
And your opposition to unlimited free speech is evidence of the statist in you. What's your point? Its not that I favor any one group, I favor unlimited speech. You don't. Why are you so intimidated by the speech of others?
If constitutional rights did apply to animals, as you claim
They don't, but they do speech. Speech is an activity, not a species.
It was technically, state law, as applied to property licensure and property rights
Every state has statutes that apply to corporations. The one you've held as an example is obsolete. What other relics of bygone eras would you have us reestablish? Clearly I think the unlimited power of the state would be one of them.
Although, admittedly, slavery was legal and women's rights were miniscule at the time.
I consider them and your bygone era law linked and one relevant to the other. Both are indicative of a totalitarian mindset popular in that time.
Free0352: "Last I checked, corporations do not get to vote."
Not directly, no. There's no need. They lobby and bribe, and get the votes they want.
It's called corruption. Or haven't you noticed?
"...your opposition to unlimited free speech is evidence of the statist in you. What's your point?
When the "unlimited free speech" of artificial creations encroaches upon the free speech of real human beings (and more accurately, the ability of human beings to be heard and offer redress), well, yes, I'm considered a defender of the Bill of Rights.
I can see that you're not. That's my point.
"[Constitutional rights] don't [apply to animals], but they do speech."
Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. You don't believe constitutionally guaranteed rights apply to animals, but you do believe animals have free speech rights (which would include, according to your earlier statement, "Mr. Ed")? How exactly does this work?
"Speech is an activity, not a species."
Indeed it is. Also, money is a store of value and a means of economic exchange -- not a human activity.
"The one you've held as an example is obsolete."
Well, of course. That's why we're engaging in this conversation. It's obsolescence has been by design, by activist judges, to circumvent the intent of the Constitution of the United States and grant constitutional rights to non-human entities.
Regardless, it's the way our Founders wanted corporations to be structured.
"What other relics of bygone eras would you have us reestablish?"
Certainly not the unregulated industrial practices of polluting at will, and caveat emptor.
"Clearly I think the unlimited power of the state would be one of them."
Clearly, you're wrong. However, I clearly am a believer in the constitutional rights of the human person -- not the non-human variety favored by you.
"I consider them and your bygone era law linked and one relevant to the other."
Just as you believe in the totally false notion that laissez-faire economics existed early in this country's history, and would again if only the damn government regulators would step out of the way?
So, please tell me a again that you're not a tea party adherent... ;-) Because, honestly, isn't that exactly what a libertarian is?
Thanks, Free.
Only I haven't really "won" anything. Just making an observation that should be better understood by the American public.
Corporations and the .1% are the only winners in their deliberately rigged system.
And you're right. That's not likely to change, no matter how destructive it is to American democracy and prosperity for the 99.9%.
Maybe you're getting an inkling of the concept of "corporatocracy" after all.
When the "unlimited free speech" of artificial creations encroaches upon the free speech of real human beings
By all means list all the ways your free speech has been violated Jeff? Exactly how many times has legal authority kept you from saying something? Please give specific names, dates, and relevant details.
it's the way our Founders wanted corporations to be structured.
They also wanted whites to own black people. I guess they weren't always right.
I clearly am a believer in the constitutional rights of the human person -- not the non-human variety favored by you.
Clearly you have stated this. You would make rights into privileges for organizations. When I pointed out this would eliminate the right to due process, you claimed government would always extend that privilege and in the next breath specifically stated you would eliminate a group's 5th Amendment protections... I don't want to make rights into privilege for churches, unions, companies, associations etc. You do.
please tell me a again that you're not a tea party adherent
Ok. I'm not a tea party adherent. I'm for total abolition of the drug war and basically open boarders. Not exactly popular positions for the Tea Party. I do sincerely hope they can get taxes lowered though.
Dave,
And you're right. That's not likely to change, no matter how destructive it is to American democracy and prosperity for the 99.9%.
Of course not, your views are totally unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. There is a reason socialism is a dirty word in American politics. People don't like it.
it's the way our Founders wanted corporations to be structured
I would also note, there were almost no corporate regulations in 1775, there are many hundreds of thousands today.
The idea it was more regulated then is just laughable.
Dave Dubya: "Thanks, Free."
and...
"Maybe you're getting an inkling of the concept of 'corporatocracy' after all."
and...
Free0352: "Of course not, your views are totally unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. There is a reason socialism is a dirty word in American politics. People don't like it."
Dave, I think you were premature in your gratitude. ;-)
Free0352 is like an old stubborn mule. He ain't gonna agree with you, or even come close to seeing your point. Consequently, ya' have to hit 'em on the head every so often and let him know when he's wrong. Although he always has a bunch of lumps on his head, he never learns and keeps coming back for more.
And you're right. That's not likely to change, no matter how destructive it is to American democracy and prosperity for the 99.9%.
Of course not, your views are totally unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. There is a reason socialism is a dirty word in American politics. People don't like it.
Is that why Bernie Sanders is more popular than ever?
You’re statement is so general it is meaningless. My view that democracy is vital for freedom? My view that big money corrupts? My view that rights should not be proportional to wealth? Get real.
Oh, perhaps you meant the term “socialism”. Yeah, that word has been maligned by the vast Right Wing corporate media empire to no end. Just like “liberals” have been so systematically demonized, that it is reminiscent of the initial scapegoating of Jews in Nazi Germany. In Right Wing America, liberals are the scapegoats for everything bad.
So no wonder the image of socialism has been perverted into being no different than a communist dictatorship.
Be that as it may, it turns out a Gallup Poll shows the term socialism is gaining, not losing, favor, from 36% in 2010 to 39% in 2012.
Younger Americans are learning to ask questions, which is of course, the authoritarian Right’s nightmare.
In addition, a clear majority of American support social programs and socialized safety nets. Yeah, they do. That means most Americans agree with me and disagree with you, once they get past the Right’s framing and propaganda.
Poll after poll shows:
83% oppose reducing Social Security benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
“Over two thirds of Americans agree that the government has a role in providing a safety net for their personal financial security, including Social Security, Medicare, and protection from fraud.”
Voters overwhelmingly approve of raising the cap on Social Security wages above $106,000 (71% in favor, 21% oppose).
64% oppose spending cuts to Social Security.
70 percent of Americans say “Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government guaranteeing seniors health insurance and making sure that everyone gets the same defined set of benefits.”
76% think government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage to the elderly.
76% support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than one million dollars a year.
81% support the rights of workers to unionize to negotiate with their employers.
67% support the rights of state employees to unionize
And there’s this little bit of near universal socialist leaning by the public:
92% Of Americans Are Socialists They Just Don’t Know It
In a recent study by Duke and Harvard University they found many Americans believe that the top 20% of our nation’s wealthiest own 60% of the wealth. The real figure is the top 20% own 84% of our nation’s wealth and it is increasing every year.
When the respondents were asked to pick an unlabeled pie chart “How much should the top 20% own?” 92% of them preferred the Swedish model of income distribution over the current American economic model. The Swedish economic model, which is the top 20% own 36% of the nation’s wealth.
“Ignorance is strength” has been an operative principle of the far Right for some time, and it has been halfway effective. They’ve conditioned in many a negative response to the words “liberal” and “socialism”, but have failed to suppress the popularity of actual liberalism and socialism in practice.
This is why they always need to rebrand their message. “Liberals are commies”. The rich from now on are to be called “job creators” even though they dismantle American jobs and send them overseas. They whine about “oppressive” taxes and regulatory “burdens” as they enjoy higher profits and lower real taxes than ever.
But the point made was true, no matter what the extent of public awareness may be.
We’re sure you feel the same way about your beliefs that are only accepted by the minority.
Generalize all you want, but the fact is we both hold some positions that are either of the majority, or of an emerging majority, such as gay rights and reversing the drug war. Maybe even the view that both major parties suck.
81% support the rights of workers to unionize to negotiate with their employers.
67% support the rights of state employees to unionize
That's interesting. I support the rights of workers to unionize, so I guess I'm a socialist huh?
What I don't support, is forcing people to pay money to unions against their will if they don't want representation. Right to work doesn't ban unions, it bans forced union membership. I'm also against union intimidation and thuggery - not all unions engage in that, but some do.
So your definitions of "socialist" is so broad, it even includes me.
Or perhaps your just trying to be as inclusive as you can for the sake of this argument.
Real socialism, is supported by a mere 24% of Americans, while 68% are avowed Capitalists.
That's because Capitalism has increased standards of living and lifted more people from poverty than socialism - which tends to crush freedoms at best and at worst machine guns the citizens.
I would also note Jeff couldn't list any ways his freedom of speech have been curtailed in any way.
Free,
You're more socialist than you think. Your VA benefits and military pension are socialized. The roads you drive on are socialized.
It is always a matter of degree, but that fails to register in a black and ideology.
So the Rasmussen poll defined "real" socialism, did it?
Libertarians aren't anarchists. We believe in paying necessary government employees (like Soldiers) and having roads.
That's a far cry from a government taking control over the means of production (or controlling the producers) which is what socialism is.
One is a moderate system, the other is a radical (and proven failure) system.
That's a far cry from a government taking control over the means of production (or controlling the producers) which is what socialism is.
No, yours is only the narrowest and extreme definition of socialism.
And nobody's asking for that. We're asking for a government of, by, and for the people that promotes and provides for the general welfare.
You know, THAT radical stuff. Socialism is found in every advanced nation where government provides public service and benefits for the poor. And the people want it. Americans by huge majorities want to keep social security, medicare and unemployment compensation. They want some socialism whether they are educated enough to understand or not.
One is a moderate system, the other is a radical (and proven failure) system.
Socialism is not an absolutist system like communism and capitalism. It is compatible with democracy, as well as the general welfare and regulated commerce required by our Constitution.
It is the moderate way between communism and unregulated predatory capitalism. The crash of '08 taught SOME of us a lesson on the cruel failures of runaway de-regulated capitalism.
Moderates want Social Security and Medicare.
Extremists don't.
No, yours is only the narrowest and extreme definition of socialism
Socialism. N A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
That's from Websters, and its the definition I'm working off of.
Socialism is found in every advanced nation where government provides public service and benefits for the poor
Capitalism benefits the poor, by making them rich. Socialism makes it harder to become rich, by over regulating and taxing them.
Capitalism. N. An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Socialism and Capitalism can be practiced by degree. Care to compare and contrast the most socialist of nations against the standard of living of the more Capitalist ones?
It is compatible with democracy
So is a theocracy - if you elect the priests. So is fascism, so long as you elect the leader. So is communism, if you elect the party center.
Democracy is neither good nor bad. Its just a way of choosing leadership. Its not that special. In the Holy Roman Empire the elite elected the Emperor. That didn't make the serfs in Germany any less serfs.
It is the moderate way between communism and unregulated predatory capitalism
Bring on the "predatory" Capitalism. God forbid the citizens get all predatory trying to sell things to one another... Better to have socialism - where the STATE controls your life. This has been put forward here in America, and its been rejected. If you like soft socialism so much, try Finland.
Free0352: "I would also note Jeff couldn't list any ways his freedom of speech have been curtailed in any way."
I'll also note -- as I have on so many occasions -- that as long as money is considered speech, my right to free speech has been curtailed and stifled. As long as each representative in Congress has several corporate lobbyists telling him or her how to vote, I have no say in how my government is run.
It's really quite simple. I often wonder why you haven't figured this out.
Since when has Social Security and Medicare and VA benefits controlled anyone’s life? And as I recall, that socialistic GI Bill that provided education for millions did a lot more to grow a middle class than Wall Street capitalists. I know a lot of Americans were made a lot poorer by the failure of capitalism in the Crash of ’08.
In order to debate, agreement on definitions of terms needs to be established. I say government safety nets are socialism but your version is limited to the Marxist pre-communist definition, except for one detail: “or regulated by the community as a whole”. That “or” is an important word.
That would be the Constitution’s regulation of commerce. Never mind Finland, we have socialism in our Constitution. You can disagree all you want.
Okay, back to Finland. They are happier than Americans. Look at all those happy socialists, based much on life expectancy, social support, and freedom to make life choices. You’d better go straighten them out.
World’s Happiest Countries:
1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Netherlands
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Finland
8. Austria
9. Iceland
10. Australia
This is from 2010-1012. Even Venezuela rated higher than the US.
All are compatible with democracy. And in case you missed it, people couldn’t vote Hitler and Stalin out of office.
Free0352: "So is a theocracy - if you elect the priests. So is fascism, so long as you elect the leader. So is communism, if you elect the party center."
It's quite apparent that you don't understand the concept of "democracy". If I'm not misunderstanding, you think that voting is the only necessary condition for democracy?
If that's it I would have to suppose you're right! Yea! The whole world has been democratized! Bring all the troops home! Mission accomplished!
Can we expect any more words of infinite wisdom from you today, Tool Boy?
Democracy N. A system of government by the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
In case you haven't figured it out, I don't care what "YOUR" definition is. I'm going with the dictionary to know what words mean.
Its not that I don't know what these things are - I'm starting to think its you who don't know this.
As for your "happyness" cliam... they're so happy They are burning it down.
They also kill themselves more than anyplace else.
These scales you talked about Dave, are socialist propaganda. It sucks there. I've been there, and it sucks. Have you?
Free0352: "Democracy N. A system of government by the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
That's it?! You believe that your (truncated) definition is the sole and exclusive determinate of what constitutes a democracy?
You're being your usual disingenuous and insincere self. Propositioning false or incomplete statements, with the deliberate intent to deceive, is just your way, I know, but can't you just fight the urge to lie every time you comment here?
Why didn't you submit the total definition? Here, I'll help you:
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally — either directly or indirectly through elected representatives — in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."
Hey, get some professional help. I'm sure your (socialist) GI benefits would pay for it.
"As for your 'happyness' cliam... they're so happy They are burning it down."
Well, from what I read, it's the immigrants who are "burning it down."
And your point is?...
"They also kill themselves more than anyplace else."
And as the research studies pointed out in the article you've chosen, there's a paradoxical direct correlation within societies or cultures that have higher happiness status and suicide. The article even articulated this point by using the state of Utah as an example.
Do you even bother to read your "supporting" research before you post it? (Maybe you do, and as I've contended all along, you have a comprehension challenge. It might be all of that DU you've been exposed to. What do you think?)
"These scales you talked about Dave, are socialist propaganda."
The 156 nation survey was completed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Tell me, do you believe there is "capitalist propaganda"?
"It sucks there. I've been there, and it sucks. Have you?"
Since when does "being somewhere" make one the undisputed expert in native culture and mores? I've been to Puerto Rico more times than I can count. Does that make me an expert in the culture and traditions? I don't think so. One has to live somewhere to understand the nuances, and ebbs and flows of a country or culture. Living and depending upon a U.S. military installation isn't the same thing. Sorry, no points for you.
That's it?! You believe that your (truncated) definition is the sole and exclusive determinate of what constitutes a democracy?
I think the dictionary is a pretty definitive source as to what words mean Jeff.
Why didn't you submit the total definition?
I did. The definition is slightly different depending on the source. There is basically no difference between the one I used and the one you used. I'm sorry to break this to you but
Democracy doesn't not = freedom.
If your fellow voters vote to have your head shaved, you aren't free.
As Mather Byles famously said
Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?
Democracy and a legislature can crush the rights of an individual as assuredly as any dictator.
Ask any black person in America if Democracy can't disenfranchised someone? There are still quite a few alive who remember Jim Crow.
So no, I don't share your reverence for the democratic system. There's nothing all that special about it. Its very simply a method to chose leadership.
What matters is law. What matters is a constitution, and natural rights. That is what is important, not democracy. The Supreme Court is the chief guardian of legal rights in our system of government.
Note - they are not elected and they serve for life.
One has to live somewhere to understand the nuances
I've lived in Europe for many years. So if that's your yardstick, I meet it.
And you can't argue the point, people in Sweden are depressed and are violently attacking their own society. You can try to put a dress on that pig, but it still oinks.
It sucks there. I've been there
Where doesn’t it suck?
From Free’s article why Sweden sucks:
In Stockholm and other towns and cities last week, bands made up mostly of young immigrants set buildings and cars ablaze in a spasm of destructive rage rarely seen in a country proud of its normally tranquil, law-abiding ways.
A recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that income inequality had grown faster in Sweden than in any other industrialized nation between 1985 and the end of the past decade, although it remains far more equal than most countries.
“The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer,” said Barbro Sorman, an activist of the opposition Left Party. “Sweden is starting to look like the U.S.A.”
Now THAT is why it would suck.
Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world's happiest countries
•
• There’s a reason Free want to ignoer the Full Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Absence of democracy is absence of freedom. Democracy is antithetical to dictatorship. Corporatism is also antagonistic towards democracy. Hence the GOP vote suppression.
Everything Free wants to ignore is “socialist propaganda”, isn’t it?
Where doesn’t it suck?
America. I've been to 24 countries, and this place has the best deal going.
That is why I'm passionate about NOT turning this place into Europe, where the governments suck.
Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world's happiest countries
That must be why they blow their brains out in record numbers.
rule of the majority
Is tyranny of the majority. A majority can put you in the death camps as good as any dictator.
Nah, give me a constitutional Republic like we have here anyday.
Then the State can't come along and through some vote decide on a whim to violate our natural rights. Which has happened, in EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN COUNTRY.
And this one, when the majority decided blacks weren't people.
Screw a nation of people, I want a nation of laws. The majority will crush your freedom when it suits them, the law is all that stands between them and your life.
Free0352: "Then the State can't come along and through some vote decide on a whim to violate our natural rights."
Do you mean like how activist judges continually reaffirm, court case after court case, that corporations are persons and are entitled to "natural rights" too?
"Screw a nation of people, I want a nation of laws."
Yes, laws that serve and protect the majority of people -- not just an elite few.
"The majority will crush your freedom when it suits them, the law is all that stands between them and your life."
Do you mean the majority on the Supreme Court who continually and repeatedly favor the rich and powerful to the exclusion of about 99% of Americans? McCutcheon vs. the FEC is just the latest nail in the coffin of our dying American democracy, thanks to ultra-conservative activist judges.
It's only about 1% who are hijacking our rights -- not the majority -- and they're doing it through landmark court decisions that favor the elite.
So much for your nation of "laws". Corruption reigns in America.
Screw a nation of people, I want a nation of laws.
Thanks to "Money is free speech" we have a nation of laws (and trade agreements)...dictated and written by ALEC, the Kochs, and other powers of corporate wealth.
It's called corporatocracy. Rights are proportional to wealth. Politicians listen to the loudest "free speech" backed by the most cash.
It is called corruption.
jeff G...yes, he is a babbling idiot. It became to difficult to come here and even gently peruse his ravings. Sorry Dave.
"Screw a nation of people..."
I truly do not know if I should laugh or cry. I will go with laugh...
hmm...how about a nation of trees or a nation of canned goods or a nation ...of...ohohoh... Dunces.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathon Swift
..but I am sure Free would not fully embrace the nuance.
okjimm: "...yes, he is a babbling idiot. It became to difficult to come here and even gently peruse his ravings."
I understand, Okjimm. I suppose that I have taken the opposite approach and have chosen to push back against the defenders of the corporatocracy anywhere, and any way, I can.
Trolls (also spelled "tools"), like Free0352, have committed themselves to spreading the insanity of libertarianism (i.e., the "tea party") in every liberal outlet they possibly can. We have to assume that there are hundreds more just like him. (He's number 0352 -- there are potentially 351 preceding him, and who knows how many following.) It's one of their tactics.
It has actually been fun picking him apart. He's so easy. But, that's to be expected. With his malevolent ideology, there is no foundation to support his arguments.
Do you mean like how activist judges continually reaffirm, court case after court case, that corporations are persons and are entitled to "natural rights" too?
Yes, that was one way they protected the rights of a minority over the whims of a majority.
Do you mean the majority on the Supreme Court who continually and repeatedly favor the rich and powerful to the exclusion of about 99% of Americans? McCutcheon vs. the FEC is just the latest nail in the coffin of our dying American democracy, thanks to ultra-conservative activist judges
Yes, the affirmed the 2nd Amendments protections. That is standing up for the Constitution.
Rights are proportional to wealth
Really Dave? Please articulate a list of rights the SCOTUS has taken from you as a result of your economic status?
Rights are proportional to wealth
Really Dave? Please articulate a list of rights the SCOTUS has taken from you as a result of your economic status?
Really.
Your question has nothing to do with my statement.
And you have it backwards. The SC has expanded corporate and individual rights proportional to wealth.
What is diminished is the standing of free speech for the 99.9%.
Big Money has more freedom of speech if "Money is free speech".
More money equals more "free speech".
And that aint rocket science.
Roberts’ opinion in McCutcheon defines the word “corruption” so narrowly that it is practically meaningless. Like your definition of democracy. It aint just voting.
The only type of corruption Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.
If you buy that, I have some land in Florida real cheap for you.
So you're telling us there's no expectation of favors behind all that donated money? You're telling us that all that "free speech" is simply their selfless support of democracy?
Yeah, right.
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Don’t act surprised.
Again Dave, please articulate the number of legal rights the SCOTUS has taken from you.
List times and dates.
Hallo, i think i i bemerkte besucht Siie meinen Homepage kam
zu Rück deer bevorzaugen Ich bin?. versuchen finden Fragen zu verbessern verbessern mein web site Ich gehe davon! seine
gut genuug zu verwenden einige Konzepte !!
Post a Comment