I can't believe I have to keep explaining this. Thank government "Bomb throwing anarchists!" propaganda. Anarchism means "no rulers" (Archons in ancient Greek) not "no government" which would be written "anocracy." Libertarians never seem to understand the long history that preceded their little brand of anarchism.
If there was no government, what would keep the powerful of the world from sending goons to enslave you? Without congress and COICA, the corporations of the world would have nothing to stop them from stealing your stuff, and your freedom, and if you think you have the firepower to defend yourself when multi-billionaires gang up on you, you are an idiot.
If we were starting from a level playing field, getting rid of most government would be a wonderful idea. As it is, you will find people like the billionaire Koch brothers backing the idea of getting rid of government, much the way wolves might advocate getting rid of chicken coops, fences, and dogs. We need to level the playing field, then get rid of government. And government is the only thing we've got that can compete wit the power of said multibillionaires. After all, in a free democracy, government is us, and if it is NOT us, it is because WE let someone steal it from us, an WEhave the power to take it back.
What, exactly, are these socialist ideas? Who espouses them, exactly? And, if true, why are these socialist ideals bad? The semantic content of your post boils down to "Booga! booga! booga! socialists! Booga booga! Are you scared yet? Should I say the word socialist some more until you are?"
His what, now? You actually believe Rand Paul has ideals? He has demonstrated, over and over, that he does not. He doesn't even have convictions, let alone ideals. He is a spoiled brat whose political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do whatever I want to, whenever I want to and you can't stop me." Rand Paul pretends to be a board certified ophthalmologist by pretending to be a board of ophthalmological certification who only certifies Rand Paul. Then there is his Aqua Buddha incident where he kidnapped a female college acquaintance and tried to make her smoke pot. Rand Paul respects only one person's rights: Rand Paul's. Everyone else can go hang. Whenever Republicans or Corporations have asked Rand Paul to change his position, his answer has been "To what?"
Rand Paul could not remember why Harlan, Kentucky was famous, but thought it might have something to do with the Dukes of Hazard. Rand Paul threatened to sue the reporter who broke the Aqua Buddha drug fueled idol worshiping kidnapping, even though Paul would not deny the truth of the story. He refused to reveal how old he thinks the earth is, as he is "not running for minister."
In short, Rand Paul is a living, breathing monument to the absolute, unmitigated selfishness that is American Libertarianism. He shows, in innumerable ways, time and again, that his 'ideals' are simply, "Rand Paul gets to do whatever he likes. Rules are made by fascists and do not apply to Rand Paul. Unless they are protecting or enriching Rand Paul, in which case, they do apply."
Well, I took what the AC wrote to mean "some Jews in positions of power" not "all Jews."
Hardliners and fanatics of all stripes are the same. They are all in cahoots with each other, consciously or not. They act to ensure the continued "need" for hardliners and fanatics, all of them. They all wish ton convince the rest of us that it is those hardliners, those fanatics over there who are our enemy, but the truth is that all warmongers are our enemy.
People in power who advocate for a strong military could really care less whether that military protects you. You and your safety are beside the point.
That is in no way antisemitism. It is a simple statement of fact. It does not say 'all Jews.' It does not ascribe any evil motives to them: they wish to protect their ancestral homeland, nothing wrong with that. It does not claim they control or dominate American politics, or spread any other false and malicious rumors about Jews. Who wouldn't want someone else to pay for their safety? If you can convince someone in an open and free society to pay for your defense, more power to you.
Just as an interesting aside, do you know why a lot of Christians want to protect Israel? The Jews have to be there on Judgment day. No Jews, no Jesus. And the Jews die. Evangelicals want them there to die and ensure the return of their savior.
Me, I wish them the Jews the best of luck protecting their country from the assholes surrounding them that wish them nothing but death. The kind of "Oh my God they're coming to get us!" thinking that is ridiculous bullshit when we Americans do it is absolutely true over there.
But I am DONE paying for it. I am done paying for the world's police force. The world doesn't need that many cops, and someone else can take a turn anyway.
They do not commit fraud in selective quoting and editing. Unless you can point to a specific example? I'm sorry, the facts have a liberal bias, and organizations biased towards liberalism are biased towards reality. I am also biased towards the truth. I trust them because they tell the truth, not because they are on any particular side. It isn't my fault that one side relies on lies, distortion, and fear-mongering, and the other side doesn't.
I know what they are. Sometimes, I like to troll trolls. I figure, if they are wasting their time on me, they won't be annoying someone less able to handle it.
Ah, so before anyone buys it, we, the people own it. Or the government couldn't auction it off. But original ownership is not the issue, it is regulation of a shared non-physical resource. While I have heard free market schemes for frequency self-regulation, none sound workable, and you haven't even come close to the simplest of these schemes.
In any case, you have made my point for me: we own the airwaves and can do whatever we like with them. Why auction them off when we can lease them, maintain control over them, realize a steady stream of income, and guarantee their use serves our purposes rather than the needs of those wealthy enough to buy them?
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Of course you cannot own radio waves but you could own (and buy and sell) an exclusive right to use a particular frequency. Why not? It's really not any different from the right to own land (a shared limited resource) and we have laws that manage that. To use the example I read somewhere (Friedman I think) Opera houses are a limited resource as not everybody who wants to sing in an Opera house can do so. Therefore should government take over Opera houses and ration them with conditions attached? After all Opera houses are build on a limited resource we all share (in this case land, it could be radio frequencies). But it is not land or radio frequencies that give value to the Opera House/radio station. It is the work the owners put into it by building and running the opera house or the infrastructure to make programing and broadcast possible that give it value. Otherwise its just a bunch of dirt/unused frequency bands.
You make this too easy. Try to think things through before you post.
Who would you buy such a thing from?
You really kind of walked right into that, didn't you? Because, in case you haven't figured it out, unlike physical property, you can't stake any kind of claim to the airwaves, because you can't physically occupy them in an exclusive fashion. Thus, you need a regulatory body to control and manage them, or everyone will claim them at the same time, meaning no one can use them.
It isn't about whether the resource is limited, it is whether it is exclusionary. Physical property can only be physically occupied by a certain number of owners, but every person on the planet could simultaneously occupy the same frequency. You can lock the door on an Opera house, how do you lock the door on a frequency? You really don't even understand the parameters of the problem. You have no idea why the government regulates airwaves in the first place. In your mind, airwaves are like physical property. But you obviously haven't even given thought one to how unregulated airwaves would work in the real world.
I love how you can claim a business is bound to the public it serves, but not a government. A business is bound by law to screw the customers out of every penny they can, or the stockholders can sue. But a corporation is not really bound to the stockholders, it is bound to the old boys club that runs the board and appoints the CEOs. Stockholders get screwed all the time, as we see in every economic crisis we go through, and yet, somehow, that old boys club gets bigger and bigger bonuses all the time.
Ah, you know what, I should thank you. It was very kind of you to let me dictate the terms of debate, and ever so kind of you to take a vehemently pro corporate stance. In case you didn't know, corporations and Wall Street are a teensy bit unpopular right now, and deservedly so.
I also simply love how schizophrenic the right wing has become. They simultaneously defend and attack "big business." Wall street, good! No, Wall Street, bad! I guess the Wall Street that those ebil libruls pal around with is bad, but the Wall Street that gives Americans their jobs and Republicans their donations, THAT is the very HEART AND SOUL of capitalism. Haha, wow, you guys slay me.
You can't even see the utter hypocrisy, can you?
Perhaps you should get control of your emotions and take a deep breath. Perhaps in your own mind you are dispassionate, but you come across as highly emotionally invested. You use emotionally charged language and insults to try to make your case. And then turn around and in an obviously insulting and derogatory fashion and tell your opponent that they are being emotional.
Do you have no capacity for introspection whatsoever? Are you really that blind to your own nature?
Right, I mean, Bill Gates has a personal meeting with Bush, a few days later the DOJ drops the case like a hot potato, how could anyone draw the conclusion that something untoward happened there? Obviously, that is completely different from the case at hand...
You can't really be this dense. I think you are pretending to have trouble in order to try to convince some imaginary reader that I am a loon. No one is reading this thread this far down but you and me, so give it a rest.
A corporation has a legally bound fiduciary duty to do what, exactly? Make money for its shareholders. The government is bound by the constitution.
Further more, the government government over all within it's realm which can and does include plants, animals and corporations too.
God, I love you, sumdumass. That sentence made this whole debate worthwhile. Ever watch Waiting for Godot? Yeah, that sentence reminded me of Lucky's monologue "Being given the existence such that it gushes forth from the public works of Poinçon and Wattman of a personal God quaquaquaqua..." Seriously, debating you is so much fun, I just have to wait for the frothing rage to reach your brain and render you incoherent, and you can be counted on to deliver gems like this. I think I might make it my sig.
And don't even try to tell me to take a deep breath and work on my emotions, I mean, who do you think you are fooling with that? Okaaaay, Mr. Spock. I shall work on my emotions, and become a creature of dispassionate logic, like you, ahahahahaha.
We already require X number of signatures for all kinds of political things, why are you acting as though this is some kind of new, strange, and dangerous thing? As it stands, media companies decide how many signatures you need to get on the debates. How is that more fair?
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Where in the constitution does it say that freedom of speech is limited to those who can gather X numbers of dollars? Because that is what we have now. And why should it be up to the handful of corporations that own all media who gets on the air? I mean, it is pretty obvious that, left or right, no politician who pisses off the corporations will even get a fair hearing.
Isn't it obvious? It's the Obama administration. Google can go take a flying fuck for all I care. No, I am trying to combat what will soon be a constant media storm of calls for Obama's impeachment. The Republicans could give a fuck about governing the country, they want his blood. So we will be seeing all kinds of stories about this and that supposed scandal. All of them will be lies, or blown way out of proportion like this one. I don't recall you getting up in arms about Bush pardoning Microsoft. In fact, weren't you one of his stalwart defenders on the issue? I'll need to look it up, but I seem to recall you were.
So yeah, I am going to derail illegitimate bullshit like this every god damn time I see it, using the convenient and effective strategy of Telling the Truth. You might want to try it.
Your problems with reading comprehension aren't my problem. Normal users of the English language have no trouble following my prose. I'll give you the 'amoral' though. As for sociopaths, do you know what the term means? Psychological theory tells us one of the primary characteristics of sociopathy is the inability to see anyone, including oneself, as a person. Lacking empathy, sociopaths see everything as objects.
I'll stand by my characterization.
Now, as for airwaves, they are a public good. No one can buy them, they can only lease them, because we, the people, own and control them. They aren't like regular property, you transmit and it will enter my property whether I give you permission or not.
It amazes me that you can defend corporations as simply made up of individuals, yet the evil Government is not. Corporations, as I mentioned, diffuse responsibility by their very nature. They affect the people involved in them, allowing those people to do evil without thinking of it as evil. The stockholders of BP can rest easy at night, knowing they weren't the ones who ordered corners cut. The CEO can rest easy, knowing he just did what any CEO would do for their stockholders. Each gets to blame the other while they profit, don't you see that this combination of easy profit and no remorse can lead normal people to make very evil decisions?
Sadly, reality is more like I think it is than it is like you think it is. I mean, I would love to live in a world where republicans cared about fiscal responsibility and corporations were not evil.
Ah, so you've bought the right wing propaganda about Soros hook, line and sinker. Let me ask you, what are George Soros' activities and feelings regarding communism, and why? If you don't know how Soros feels about communism, you know nothing about the man. Here's a hint: if communism is left wing, then Soros isn't.
Wow. You are saying that people should educate themselves based on the messages put out by politicians, and paid for by corporations?
How about, since we the people own the airwaves and just lease them out to corporations, we require those corporations to give every politician who raises X number of signatures free airtime?
Corporations are not people. They are not citizens, they are immortal and immoral sociopathic machines which diffuse responsibility to such an extent that nobody involved feels that they, personally, are contributing to evil. But they are. The corporate structure itself is an IMMENSE moral hazard, it creates evil despite the best intentions of the people involved.
Ah, so you believe corporate control of our political process is a good thing, gotcha. You are actually happy that big corporations are giving money to liberal causes. I was confused about that. Because earlier, you made it seem like a bad thing.
Of course an investigation is warranted. Lots of investigations are warranted. The things that actually get investigated tend to be the things that benefit someone wealthy. Why has the NLPC not called for an investigation of Halliburton?
The real question is, what have you got against Google and liberalism? It's in your sig. You have a specific beef with them. You pick and choose stories that make google and/or liberals look bad. You've never submitted a story railing against Microsoft, or Republicans. What's up with that?
Just so you know, it makes your motivations seem questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe I have to keep explaining this. Thank government "Bomb throwing anarchists!" propaganda. Anarchism means "no rulers" (Archons in ancient Greek) not "no government" which would be written "anocracy." Libertarians never seem to understand the long history that preceded their little brand of anarchism.
If there was no government, what would keep the powerful of the world from sending goons to enslave you? Without congress and COICA, the corporations of the world would have nothing to stop them from stealing your stuff, and your freedom, and if you think you have the firepower to defend yourself when multi-billionaires gang up on you, you are an idiot.
If we were starting from a level playing field, getting rid of most government would be a wonderful idea. As it is, you will find people like the billionaire Koch brothers backing the idea of getting rid of government, much the way wolves might advocate getting rid of chicken coops, fences, and dogs. We need to level the playing field, then get rid of government. And government is the only thing we've got that can compete wit the power of said multibillionaires. After all, in a free democracy, government is us, and if it is NOT us, it is because WE let someone steal it from us, an WEhave the power to take it back.
What, exactly, are these socialist ideas? Who espouses them, exactly? And, if true, why are these socialist ideals bad? The semantic content of your post boils down to "Booga! booga! booga! socialists! Booga booga! Are you scared yet? Should I say the word socialist some more until you are?"
His what, now? You actually believe Rand Paul has ideals? He has demonstrated, over and over, that he does not. He doesn't even have convictions, let alone ideals. He is a spoiled brat whose political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do whatever I want to, whenever I want to and you can't stop me." Rand Paul pretends to be a board certified ophthalmologist by pretending to be a board of ophthalmological certification who only certifies Rand Paul. Then there is his Aqua Buddha incident where he kidnapped a female college acquaintance and tried to make her smoke pot. Rand Paul respects only one person's rights: Rand Paul's. Everyone else can go hang. Whenever Republicans or Corporations have asked Rand Paul to change his position, his answer has been "To what?"
Rand Paul could not remember why Harlan, Kentucky was famous, but thought it might have something to do with the Dukes of Hazard. Rand Paul threatened to sue the reporter who broke the Aqua Buddha drug fueled idol worshiping kidnapping, even though Paul would not deny the truth of the story. He refused to reveal how old he thinks the earth is, as he is "not running for minister."
In short, Rand Paul is a living, breathing monument to the absolute, unmitigated selfishness that is American Libertarianism. He shows, in innumerable ways, time and again, that his 'ideals' are simply, "Rand Paul gets to do whatever he likes. Rules are made by fascists and do not apply to Rand Paul. Unless they are protecting or enriching Rand Paul, in which case, they do apply."
Well, I took what the AC wrote to mean "some Jews in positions of power" not "all Jews."
Hardliners and fanatics of all stripes are the same. They are all in cahoots with each other, consciously or not. They act to ensure the continued "need" for hardliners and fanatics, all of them. They all wish ton convince the rest of us that it is those hardliners, those fanatics over there who are our enemy, but the truth is that all warmongers are our enemy.
People in power who advocate for a strong military could really care less whether that military protects you. You and your safety are beside the point.
That is in no way antisemitism. It is a simple statement of fact. It does not say 'all Jews.' It does not ascribe any evil motives to them: they wish to protect their ancestral homeland, nothing wrong with that. It does not claim they control or dominate American politics, or spread any other false and malicious rumors about Jews. Who wouldn't want someone else to pay for their safety? If you can convince someone in an open and free society to pay for your defense, more power to you.
Just as an interesting aside, do you know why a lot of Christians want to protect Israel? The Jews have to be there on Judgment day. No Jews, no Jesus. And the Jews die. Evangelicals want them there to die and ensure the return of their savior.
Me, I wish them the Jews the best of luck protecting their country from the assholes surrounding them that wish them nothing but death. The kind of "Oh my God they're coming to get us!" thinking that is ridiculous bullshit when we Americans do it is absolutely true over there.
But I am DONE paying for it. I am done paying for the world's police force. The world doesn't need that many cops, and someone else can take a turn anyway.
They do not commit fraud in selective quoting and editing. Unless you can point to a specific example? I'm sorry, the facts have a liberal bias, and organizations biased towards liberalism are biased towards reality. I am also biased towards the truth. I trust them because they tell the truth, not because they are on any particular side. It isn't my fault that one side relies on lies, distortion, and fear-mongering, and the other side doesn't.
I know what they are. Sometimes, I like to troll trolls. I figure, if they are wasting their time on me, they won't be annoying someone less able to handle it.
Ah, so before anyone buys it, we, the people own it. Or the government couldn't auction it off. But original ownership is not the issue, it is regulation of a shared non-physical resource. While I have heard free market schemes for frequency self-regulation, none sound workable, and you haven't even come close to the simplest of these schemes.
In any case, you have made my point for me: we own the airwaves and can do whatever we like with them. Why auction them off when we can lease them, maintain control over them, realize a steady stream of income, and guarantee their use serves our purposes rather than the needs of those wealthy enough to buy them?
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Of course you cannot own radio waves but you could own (and buy and sell) an exclusive right to use a particular frequency. Why not? It's really not any different from the right to own land (a shared limited resource) and we have laws that manage that. To use the example I read somewhere (Friedman I think) Opera houses are a limited resource as not everybody who wants to sing in an Opera house can do so. Therefore should government take over Opera houses and ration them with conditions attached? After all Opera houses are build on a limited resource we all share (in this case land, it could be radio frequencies). But it is not land or radio frequencies that give value to the Opera House/radio station. It is the work the owners put into it by building and running the opera house or the infrastructure to make programing and broadcast possible that give it value. Otherwise its just a bunch of dirt/unused frequency bands.
You make this too easy. Try to think things through before you post.
Who would you buy such a thing from?
You really kind of walked right into that, didn't you? Because, in case you haven't figured it out, unlike physical property, you can't stake any kind of claim to the airwaves, because you can't physically occupy them in an exclusive fashion. Thus, you need a regulatory body to control and manage them, or everyone will claim them at the same time, meaning no one can use them.
It isn't about whether the resource is limited, it is whether it is exclusionary. Physical property can only be physically occupied by a certain number of owners, but every person on the planet could simultaneously occupy the same frequency. You can lock the door on an Opera house, how do you lock the door on a frequency? You really don't even understand the parameters of the problem. You have no idea why the government regulates airwaves in the first place. In your mind, airwaves are like physical property. But you obviously haven't even given thought one to how unregulated airwaves would work in the real world.
I love how you can claim a business is bound to the public it serves, but not a government. A business is bound by law to screw the customers out of every penny they can, or the stockholders can sue. But a corporation is not really bound to the stockholders, it is bound to the old boys club that runs the board and appoints the CEOs. Stockholders get screwed all the time, as we see in every economic crisis we go through, and yet, somehow, that old boys club gets bigger and bigger bonuses all the time.
Ah, you know what, I should thank you. It was very kind of you to let me dictate the terms of debate, and ever so kind of you to take a vehemently pro corporate stance. In case you didn't know, corporations and Wall Street are a teensy bit unpopular right now, and deservedly so.
I also simply love how schizophrenic the right wing has become. They simultaneously defend and attack "big business." Wall street, good! No, Wall Street, bad! I guess the Wall Street that those ebil libruls pal around with is bad, but the Wall Street that gives Americans their jobs and Republicans their donations, THAT is the very HEART AND SOUL of capitalism. Haha, wow, you guys slay me.
You can't even see the utter hypocrisy, can you?
Perhaps you should get control of your emotions and take a deep breath. Perhaps in your own mind you are dispassionate, but you come across as highly emotionally invested. You use emotionally charged language and insults to try to make your case. And then turn around and in an obviously insulting and derogatory fashion and tell your opponent that they are being emotional.
Do you have no capacity for introspection whatsoever? Are you really that blind to your own nature?
Right, I mean, Bill Gates has a personal meeting with Bush, a few days later the DOJ drops the case like a hot potato, how could anyone draw the conclusion that something untoward happened there? Obviously, that is completely different from the case at hand...
You can't really be this dense. I think you are pretending to have trouble in order to try to convince some imaginary reader that I am a loon. No one is reading this thread this far down but you and me, so give it a rest.
A corporation has a legally bound fiduciary duty to do what, exactly? Make money for its shareholders. The government is bound by the constitution.
Further more, the government government over all within it's realm which can and does include plants, animals and corporations too.
God, I love you, sumdumass. That sentence made this whole debate worthwhile. Ever watch Waiting for Godot? Yeah, that sentence reminded me of Lucky's monologue "Being given the existence such that it gushes forth from the public works of Poinçon and Wattman of a personal God quaquaquaqua ..."
Seriously, debating you is so much fun, I just have to wait for the frothing rage to reach your brain and render you incoherent, and you can be counted on to deliver gems like this. I think I might make it my sig.
And don't even try to tell me to take a deep breath and work on my emotions, I mean, who do you think you are fooling with that? Okaaaay, Mr. Spock. I shall work on my emotions, and become a creature of dispassionate logic, like you, ahahahahaha.
We already require X number of signatures for all kinds of political things, why are you acting as though this is some kind of new, strange, and dangerous thing? As it stands, media companies decide how many signatures you need to get on the debates. How is that more fair?
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Where in the constitution does it say that freedom of speech is limited to those who can gather X numbers of dollars? Because that is what we have now. And why should it be up to the handful of corporations that own all media who gets on the air? I mean, it is pretty obvious that, left or right, no politician who pisses off the corporations will even get a fair hearing.
Really? So how much was Microsoft fined? Sorry, I should have said the Bush DOJ, knowing what a pedant you are.
Which is it I'm so vehemently protection? What?
Isn't it obvious? It's the Obama administration. Google can go take a flying fuck for all I care. No, I am trying to combat what will soon be a constant media storm of calls for Obama's impeachment. The Republicans could give a fuck about governing the country, they want his blood. So we will be seeing all kinds of stories about this and that supposed scandal. All of them will be lies, or blown way out of proportion like this one. I don't recall you getting up in arms about Bush pardoning Microsoft. In fact, weren't you one of his stalwart defenders on the issue? I'll need to look it up, but I seem to recall you were.
So yeah, I am going to derail illegitimate bullshit like this every god damn time I see it, using the convenient and effective strategy of Telling the Truth. You might want to try it.
Your problems with reading comprehension aren't my problem. Normal users of the English language have no trouble following my prose. I'll give you the 'amoral' though. As for sociopaths, do you know what the term means? Psychological theory tells us one of the primary characteristics of sociopathy is the inability to see anyone, including oneself, as a person. Lacking empathy, sociopaths see everything as objects.
I'll stand by my characterization.
Now, as for airwaves, they are a public good. No one can buy them, they can only lease them, because we, the people, own and control them. They aren't like regular property, you transmit and it will enter my property whether I give you permission or not.
It amazes me that you can defend corporations as simply made up of individuals, yet the evil Government is not. Corporations, as I mentioned, diffuse responsibility by their very nature. They affect the people involved in them, allowing those people to do evil without thinking of it as evil. The stockholders of BP can rest easy at night, knowing they weren't the ones who ordered corners cut. The CEO can rest easy, knowing he just did what any CEO would do for their stockholders. Each gets to blame the other while they profit, don't you see that this combination of easy profit and no remorse can lead normal people to make very evil decisions?
Sadly, reality is more like I think it is than it is like you think it is. I mean, I would love to live in a world where republicans cared about fiscal responsibility and corporations were not evil.
Fuck, now you are telling me I did all these mouth stretches for nothing? Damn it.
Two big old commie peas in a socialist pod drizzled with fine anarchist sauce.
Ah, so you've bought the right wing propaganda about Soros hook, line and sinker. Let me ask you, what are George Soros' activities and feelings regarding communism, and why? If you don't know how Soros feels about communism, you know nothing about the man. Here's a hint: if communism is left wing, then Soros isn't.
Wow. You are saying that people should educate themselves based on the messages put out by politicians, and paid for by corporations?
How about, since we the people own the airwaves and just lease them out to corporations, we require those corporations to give every politician who raises X number of signatures free airtime?
Corporations are not people. They are not citizens, they are immortal and immoral sociopathic machines which diffuse responsibility to such an extent that nobody involved feels that they, personally, are contributing to evil. But they are. The corporate structure itself is an IMMENSE moral hazard, it creates evil despite the best intentions of the people involved.
It takes time for event he best and the brightest to fix the epic mistakes of Bush Jr.
Wait, wait, wait. Blowjobs are going for $40 million a pop? Looks like I picked the wrong line of work!
Cool. I missed you. You're not like the other people here in the trailer park.
Ah, so you believe corporate control of our political process is a good thing, gotcha. You are actually happy that big corporations are giving money to liberal causes. I was confused about that. Because earlier, you made it seem like a bad thing.
Of course an investigation is warranted. Lots of investigations are warranted. The things that actually get investigated tend to be the things that benefit someone wealthy. Why has the NLPC not called for an investigation of Halliburton?
The real question is, what have you got against Google and liberalism? It's in your sig. You have a specific beef with them. You pick and choose stories that make google and/or liberals look bad. You've never submitted a story railing against Microsoft, or Republicans. What's up with that?
Just so you know, it makes your motivations seem questionable.