It is no secret that corporations give more money to the candidate most likely to win. It's just good business. Whoever is in power gets the most money.
Hey Bonch, are you pissed that I derailed your little propaganda piece in the first few comments? Here's a bone, then: fuck google. Fuck them right in the ear. They are corporate scumbags just like all the others, out to make a buck at everyone else's expense.
How am I putting words in anyone's mouth by asking a simple question? I want to hear it from him, he can simply say "Yes, it is just as bad when Republicans do it."
“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”
You may want to read what you cite before you cite it, to make sure it says what you think it says.
No one asked if it sounded fair and balanced. I believe the assertion was that they correct misinformation. Yes, they correct misinformation put out by the right and not the left, but their goal is to get the truth out, not to make money for two old rich guys, which is what the NLPC is for.
That's not really what I meant, the NLPC are more specifically an attack dog for the two founders, going after whichever politicians piss them off and whichever corporations compete with them. Yes, that happens to mean left wing politicians bear the brunt of their attacks, but obviously they go after corporations and right wing politicians they don't like, too.
No, the NLPC seem to be more focused on the specific corporate competition and political enemies of the two founding members. They aren't left or right really, they are the attack dogs of two rich guys.
They are not for small government. They are for big government handouts to their corporate masters, and ethics investigations of their master's competition and political opponents.
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians. Not that left wingers aren't sucking up to corporate interests, you can't be in politics in this country without giving the corporate masters at least a quickie handjob, but conservatives will do ANYTHING for their overlords.
So, they need to make a false equivalency, to show that everyone is just the same. "We do it, they do it, what are you going to do? That's life, that's politics, now shut up and vote for me. Unless you want a communist to win." Yeah, a communist corporatist who wants to take money from the rich and give it to the, uh, rich. They can't even keep the message straight. It depends on what suits them at the moment, look, they are socialists, oh wait, no they are in bed with Wall Street.
Oddly enough, this supposedly unbiased non profit,The National Legal and Policy Center, seems to have gone after about five times as many democrats as republicans. They were instrumental in sinking the Clintons' health care proposal in the nineties. George Soros, who is not a politician, is one of their favorite targets. I'm not sure who they serve, they are not completely right wing obviously, but I am pretty sure they serve someone with money and an agenda. Their list of targets does not look random at all, it stinks of political and financial motivation.
And this comment will never be modded up. People will continue to debate the merits of a completely imaginary version of Canadian law, based on right wing pro gun myths. Right wingers love Canada. They can just make up anything they like about evil socialist Canada and no one will contradict them. Apparently, many American right wingers are actually from Canada, and can describe life in Canada in authoritative terms. They will tell you all about their grandfather dying in line waiting medical for treatment and how they aren't allowed to defend themselves, because honest to god, they are really real Canadians and know all about life in Canada, which they hate because of all the socialists and peaceniks making crazy laws.
It's believable. I mean, I believe that stuff like this exists, and idiots buy it. I'd say, it is like "kick-ass" only with much less kick and much more ass.
Okay, you know what? I understand and respect your point of view. I don't exactly agree with all of it, but at least I can't see any hypocrisy in it.
There are a lot of stupid rules out there. There are rules out there that I refuse to follow. I'm not trying to defend every stupid rule out there, nor am I saying that governments are always legitimate, or that our government is always right. It isn't.
The thing is, I really wish I could trust you. It's not a probability thing, most likely you are trustworthy. Most people generally are. It's the five percent who aren't. The ones who are born with no empathy and no sense of remorse. Sociopaths. There's only a one in twenty chance that you are one, but if you are, there is no way in hell I am letting you set your own rules. Sociopaths tend to have different default rules than other people, where a normal person might believe "No eating other people" a sociopath might think "No eating other people on Wednesday." or something equally weird and sick.
And the thing is, sociopaths don't go around wearing signs. We can't just make the rules for them and them alone, even though they are the only ones who really need them. If we want them to follow the rules, we have to, too.
So we are faced with a choice: follow rules we were more than likely going to follow anyway, or go it alone and be dominated by monsters. I don't suffer any illusions that I, by myself, can defend myself against all who would oppress and use me. And so, I join a society and follow it's rules, knowing that together, we can keep the fucking sociopaths at bay.
I think it is a good bargain. I can understand that others might not think so. But they do not get to tell me that I can't make that bargain because it infringes on their rights to do whatever the hell they please, sorry. Yes, it does infringe on your ability to do whatever the hell you please. That is kind of the point. Some things that some people want to do aren't very nice.
For those rules you don't like, we have ways of changing them. But claiming the whole system of governance and rules is unfair, like libertarians do, is simply childish. We want it that way, and you don't get to tell us we can't have it that way, because there are more of us and we are stronger than you. That, too, is the point. Welcome to the real world. It might not be perfectly fair, but we are at least trying to make it that way.
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play. You don't get to tell the rest of us to stop playing. That would be very hypocritical.
My entitlement to participate in the group of individuals known as the United States stems from my agreement to follow the rules. If I did not agree to follow the rules, I would not be entitled to be a member of the group, and woud likely be sent to a holding facility for people who do not follow the rules.
The problem I have with libertarians is that they do not apply the same lines of reasoning to individuals and arbitrary non governmental groups of individuals as they do to government. Governments have no property rights, in their eyes. If I am on private property and have no real way to leave, in Libertarian eyes I am as a=good as a slave to the owner, I have no rights to be there or to exist there, even if it is my only option. Libertarians then turn around and use that argument to de-legitimize government, saying, "I can't leave, therefore they can't tell me what to do." For property owners, that argument does not apply.
At least you agree that property is coercion. I guess you really aren't a libertarian. If you believe that property is held only by force and coercion, you are the antithesis of what libertarians believe in. Why are you defending them? They believe that property rights are absolute and derived from a person's self ownership. If you are stuck on my land and have no other options for survival, you are my slave and must do what I tell you, according to libertarians.
You have a childish view of rules. Rules are enforced by the threat of force, yes, but that does not make them any less legitimate. They are legitimate only because the majority agrees to them and upholds them. If you do not like the rules the majority sets, that is too bad for you. Why should you get to set the rules for the majority? That is worse. It is one person saying to many, I do not like your rules, you must my rules, for only my rules are legitimate.
Don't you get it? Saying "I don't accept your rules" is the same as saying "You must accept my rules. Specifically, the one that says you don't get to tell me what to do."
I'm guessing you are not in any long term relationships: your attitude towards agreement, rules, and compromise shows that you wouldn't be very good at it. Yours is the political philosophy of the fourth grader: "You aren't the boss of me and I get to do whatever I want."
I'm telling you, you are mistaken about Egyptian slavery. Are modern Christians who tithe ten percent slaves? I don't know anyone who would claim they are. As the Egyptians working on the Pyramids were paid better, fed better, housed better, and treated better than their peers, I hardly think they were slaves.
That being said, yes, I agree: we are more free than ancient Egyptians. I'm not saying we are complete slaves and serfs yet, I am warning that we are heading in that direction.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean, singling them out? This is a technology site, so technology companies like Google are often the topic of discussion.
Read your own sig, then you tell us what you think he means.
Doc! I haven't seen you in a while! Where you been?
It is no secret that corporations give more money to the candidate most likely to win. It's just good business. Whoever is in power gets the most money.
Hey Bonch, are you pissed that I derailed your little propaganda piece in the first few comments? Here's a bone, then: fuck google. Fuck them right in the ear. They are corporate scumbags just like all the others, out to make a buck at everyone else's expense.
Better than the alternative, Grandpa Crazy and Caribou Barbie.
Fuck google. They are a big corporation who, like any corporation, would fuck its grandma for a buck.
Don't even try that shit with me, you punk ass AC.
How am I putting words in anyone's mouth by asking a simple question? I want to hear it from him, he can simply say "Yes, it is just as bad when Republicans do it."
Quoting the article you reference:
“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”
You may want to read what you cite before you cite it, to make sure it says what you think it says.
It is only socialism when the money goes to the wrong people. When it goes to people you like, it isn't socialism.
No one asked if it sounded fair and balanced. I believe the assertion was that they correct misinformation. Yes, they correct misinformation put out by the right and not the left, but their goal is to get the truth out, not to make money for two old rich guys, which is what the NLPC is for.
That's not really what I meant, the NLPC are more specifically an attack dog for the two founders, going after whichever politicians piss them off and whichever corporations compete with them. Yes, that happens to mean left wing politicians bear the brunt of their attacks, but obviously they go after corporations and right wing politicians they don't like, too.
Yes, Breitbart IS very jealous of Soros.
More money moves towards everyone when Democrats are in power, because Democratic policies are better for the economy and everyone makes more money.
For the sake of argument lets suppose you are correct. Does that excuse the fact that right wing politicians are in bed with corporations, too?
No, the NLPC seem to be more focused on the specific corporate competition and political enemies of the two founding members. They aren't left or right really, they are the attack dogs of two rich guys.
Proof?
They are not for small government. They are for big government handouts to their corporate masters, and ethics investigations of their master's competition and political opponents.
How so?
They are a front: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Legal_and_Policy_Center
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians. Not that left wingers aren't sucking up to corporate interests, you can't be in politics in this country without giving the corporate masters at least a quickie handjob, but conservatives will do ANYTHING for their overlords.
So, they need to make a false equivalency, to show that everyone is just the same. "We do it, they do it, what are you going to do? That's life, that's politics, now shut up and vote for me. Unless you want a communist to win." Yeah, a communist corporatist who wants to take money from the rich and give it to the, uh, rich. They can't even keep the message straight. It depends on what suits them at the moment, look, they are socialists, oh wait, no they are in bed with Wall Street.
Oddly enough, this supposedly unbiased non profit,The National Legal and Policy Center, seems to have gone after about five times as many democrats as republicans. They were instrumental in sinking the Clintons' health care proposal in the nineties. George Soros, who is not a politician, is one of their favorite targets. I'm not sure who they serve, they are not completely right wing obviously, but I am pretty sure they serve someone with money and an agenda. Their list of targets does not look random at all, it stinks of political and financial motivation.
And this comment will never be modded up. People will continue to debate the merits of a completely imaginary version of Canadian law, based on right wing pro gun myths. Right wingers love Canada. They can just make up anything they like about evil socialist Canada and no one will contradict them. Apparently, many American right wingers are actually from Canada, and can describe life in Canada in authoritative terms. They will tell you all about their grandfather dying in line waiting medical for treatment and how they aren't allowed to defend themselves, because honest to god, they are really real Canadians and know all about life in Canada, which they hate because of all the socialists and peaceniks making crazy laws.
It's believable. I mean, I believe that stuff like this exists, and idiots buy it. I'd say, it is like "kick-ass" only with much less kick and much more ass.
Okay, you know what? I understand and respect your point of view. I don't exactly agree with all of it, but at least I can't see any hypocrisy in it.
There are a lot of stupid rules out there. There are rules out there that I refuse to follow. I'm not trying to defend every stupid rule out there, nor am I saying that governments are always legitimate, or that our government is always right. It isn't.
The thing is, I really wish I could trust you. It's not a probability thing, most likely you are trustworthy. Most people generally are. It's the five percent who aren't. The ones who are born with no empathy and no sense of remorse. Sociopaths. There's only a one in twenty chance that you are one, but if you are, there is no way in hell I am letting you set your own rules. Sociopaths tend to have different default rules than other people, where a normal person might believe "No eating other people" a sociopath might think "No eating other people on Wednesday." or something equally weird and sick.
And the thing is, sociopaths don't go around wearing signs. We can't just make the rules for them and them alone, even though they are the only ones who really need them. If we want them to follow the rules, we have to, too.
So we are faced with a choice: follow rules we were more than likely going to follow anyway, or go it alone and be dominated by monsters. I don't suffer any illusions that I, by myself, can defend myself against all who would oppress and use me. And so, I join a society and follow it's rules, knowing that together, we can keep the fucking sociopaths at bay.
I think it is a good bargain. I can understand that others might not think so. But they do not get to tell me that I can't make that bargain because it infringes on their rights to do whatever the hell they please, sorry. Yes, it does infringe on your ability to do whatever the hell you please. That is kind of the point. Some things that some people want to do aren't very nice.
For those rules you don't like, we have ways of changing them. But claiming the whole system of governance and rules is unfair, like libertarians do, is simply childish. We want it that way, and you don't get to tell us we can't have it that way, because there are more of us and we are stronger than you. That, too, is the point. Welcome to the real world. It might not be perfectly fair, but we are at least trying to make it that way.
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play. You don't get to tell the rest of us to stop playing. That would be very hypocritical.
My entitlement to participate in the group of individuals known as the United States stems from my agreement to follow the rules. If I did not agree to follow the rules, I would not be entitled to be a member of the group, and woud likely be sent to a holding facility for people who do not follow the rules.
The problem I have with libertarians is that they do not apply the same lines of reasoning to individuals and arbitrary non governmental groups of individuals as they do to government. Governments have no property rights, in their eyes. If I am on private property and have no real way to leave, in Libertarian eyes I am as a=good as a slave to the owner, I have no rights to be there or to exist there, even if it is my only option. Libertarians then turn around and use that argument to de-legitimize government, saying, "I can't leave, therefore they can't tell me what to do." For property owners, that argument does not apply.
At least you agree that property is coercion. I guess you really aren't a libertarian. If you believe that property is held only by force and coercion, you are the antithesis of what libertarians believe in. Why are you defending them? They believe that property rights are absolute and derived from a person's self ownership. If you are stuck on my land and have no other options for survival, you are my slave and must do what I tell you, according to libertarians.
You have a childish view of rules. Rules are enforced by the threat of force, yes, but that does not make them any less legitimate. They are legitimate only because the majority agrees to them and upholds them. If you do not like the rules the majority sets, that is too bad for you. Why should you get to set the rules for the majority? That is worse. It is one person saying to many, I do not like your rules, you must my rules, for only my rules are legitimate.
Don't you get it? Saying "I don't accept your rules" is the same as saying "You must accept my rules. Specifically, the one that says you don't get to tell me what to do."
I'm guessing you are not in any long term relationships: your attitude towards agreement, rules, and compromise shows that you wouldn't be very good at it. Yours is the political philosophy of the fourth grader: "You aren't the boss of me and I get to do whatever I want."
I'm telling you, you are mistaken about Egyptian slavery. Are modern Christians who tithe ten percent slaves? I don't know anyone who would claim they are. As the Egyptians working on the Pyramids were paid better, fed better, housed better, and treated better than their peers, I hardly think they were slaves.
That being said, yes, I agree: we are more free than ancient Egyptians. I'm not saying we are complete slaves and serfs yet, I am warning that we are heading in that direction.