True or false?

[Freedom&Liberty]

A billion dollar war chest by Obama will buy a lot of votes.

It'll buy a lot of advertising. Votes are another matter.

[caddis]

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ” — Franklin D. Roosevelt

True but hyperbole

[kellyb]

Kathryn Wilde said that, and she is not the policy director of the Fed. Also, there is nothing especially damning about it, except to college student overexposed to OWS propaganda who thinks Wall Street is a dirty word.

No, it's not damning, but it's enlightening. It neatly sums up the situation. It nicely explains how assholes like Greenspan and Bernanke were unable to see an 8 trillion dollar housing bubble.

And Wall Street is a dirty word.

That would be silly. Putting the money supply directly in the hands of elected officials is a conflict of interest that no advanced capitalist nation could ever survive.

Then how do the Scandinavian countries do it?

[soylentgreen]

If the federal government didnt have so much power, I wouldnt care who was in control of it. In other words, if power really resided in the people, instead of in the government, the rich and powerful would not be able to abuse it as much.

In a competitive marketplace, I don't fear corporations. If you don't like the working conditions at one company, you can work for another. If you don't like the products/services of one company, you can take your business elsewhere. But, there's no alternative to the government. The government holds a monopoly and there are no choices.

[BooRadley]

Funding a political campaign is a far cry from government ownership. No matter how much money a candidate gets, they still have to have the votes to win.

No they don't. Why do you think they're willing to spend hundreds of millions on advertising? It's because it works. They wouldn't invest that money if they weren't getting a good return on their investment. The majority of people are soft-headed and easily manipulated. He who has the bucks gets the office.

So you agree unions shouldn't be treated as individuals.

I think individuals should be treated as individuals. I think legal entities that aren't individuals shouldn't be treated as individuals. I'm going to let you figure it out from there.

[Freedom&Liberty]

No they don't. Why do you think they're willing to spend hundreds of millions on advertising? It's because it works. They wouldn't invest that money if they weren't getting a good return on their investment.

What else are they going to do with it?

The majority of people are soft-headed and easily manipulated. He who has the bucks gets the office.

That's too simplistic. The loser spent hundreds of millions on advertising too. They invested money and didn't get a good return on their investment. He who has he most votes gets the office.

I think individuals should be treated as individuals. I think legal entities that aren't individuals should't be treated as individuals. I'm going to let you figure it out from there.

If you don't want corps to have a say, stop taxing them. It's that simple.

[BooRadley]

What else are they going to do with it?

Invest it in something that will generate a return.

That's too simplistic.

If I'm wrong, then why are you going to vote for Romney in November?

The loser spent hundreds of millions on advertising too. They invested money and didn't get a good return on their investment. He who has he most votes gets the office.

These people aren't stupid, F&L. They aren't altruistic saints, either. You know that risk and reward are related, right? It's worth the risk of hundreds of millions lost for the reward of owning the President and Congress for only a few hundred million. Look at what happend to Haliburton's value when you elected Haliburton President.

If you don't want corps to have a say, stop taxing them. It's that simple.

That wouldn't change anything. They'd still bribe politicians. They make billions doing it.

[kellyb]

Invest it in something that will generate a return.



If I'm wrong, then why are you going to vote for Romney in November?



These people aren't stupid, F&L. They aren't altruistic saints, either. You know that risk and reward are related, right? It's worth the risk of hundreds of millions lost for the reward of owning the President and Congress for only a few hundred million. Look at what happend to Haliburton's value when you elected Haliburton President.



That wouldn't change anything. They'd still bribe politicians. They make billions doing it.

I think a more salient point is that mostly, it's the same corporate entities funding the major players in both parties.

[Vader]

I think a more salient point is that mostly, it's the same corporate entities funding the major players in both parties.

I agree. I think they enjoy playing one side against the other. As such, I believe it's time for their removal from involvement of any kind with politicians.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Invest it in something that will generate a return.

All they can spend it on is advertising.

If I'm wrong, then why are you going to vote for Romney in November?

I won't vote for Romney.

These people aren't stupid, F&L. They aren't altruistic saints, either. You know that risk and reward are related, right? It's worth the risk of hundreds of millions lost for the reward of owning the President and Congress for only a few hundred million. Look at what happend to Haliburton's value when you elected Haliburton President.

No one elected Haliburton to anything. Was there another company that could do what Haliburton does?

That wouldn't change anything. They'd still bribe politicians. They make billions doing it.

An actually bribe is punishable. Taxing corps gives them the right to speak with their dollars. Face it, you want congress to have corporate tax dollars more than you want congress to operate properly.

[Vader]

No one elected Haliburton to anything. Was there another company that could do what Haliburton does?

An actually bribe is punishable. Taxing corps gives them the right to speak with their dollars. Face it, you want congress to have corporate tax dollars more than you want congress to operate properly.

Typical republithief stupidity.

Cheney owned Haliburton; therefore, Haliburton had undeniable ties to politics.

[BooRadley]

All they can spend it on is advertising.

And that advertising is what makes someone become a president.

I won't vote for Romney.

I'll be impressed if that's true, but my guess is that, in late October, they're going to discover that Obama is the biggest threat to freedom EVAR, and you're going to fall for it at the last second. Hope not.

Did you vote to re-elect bush?

No one elected Haliburton to anything

Dick Cheney is haliburton.

An actually bribe is punishable.

Not if they pay it to a PAC. That's legal.

Taxing corps gives them the right to speak with their dollars.

You can't "speak" with dollars. That's called "bribery". It was a lot of advertising and propaganda that taught you that "bribery" was "speach".

[kellyb]

Money is not free speech.
This is, like, kindergarten-level stuff.

[Freedom&Liberty]

And that advertising is what makes someone become a president.

It's also what makes someone a loser.

I'll be impressed if that's true, but my guess is that, in late October, they're going to discover that Obama is the biggest threat to freedom EVAR, and you're going to fall for it at the last second. Hope not.

Did you vote to re-elect bush?

The only one worthy of my vote is Paul. I didn't vote to re-elect Bush. Will your vote for Obama solve the problem?

Dick Cheney is haliburton.

He cut all ties to Haliburton when he was elected VP.

Not if they pay it to a PAC. That's legal.

PAC's aren't candidates.

You can't "speak" with dollars. That's called "bribery". It was a lot of advertising and propaganda that taught you that "bribery" was "speach".

Is it bribery when you donate to a candidate?

[kellyb]

Look, let's talk freely.

We all know that in the US today, money = speech, Citizens United or not. So people like me and Boo don't have a magaphone at all, and people like Rush et al are funded out the wazoo.

The republicans have WON. You've totally taken over the Democratic Party. You now have Democrats overwhelmingly voting to get rid of New Deal programs like Social Security. Nobody foresaw how revolutionary the capitalists would be. Their ability to harness bigotry and misogyny is unparalleled in the history of the whole world,.

So, lets drop the act. Obama is your homeboy, and on some level, you know it.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Wat?

[BooRadley]

The only one worthy of my vote is Paul. I didn't vote to re-elect Bush.

My apologies.

Do you know that the reason Paul isn't going to get elected is because Paul isn't on the bandwagon? He isn't owned by the companies that own the rest of the party, so they won't allow him to be President. You'll never have a chance to vote for him in the first place, because of corporate "free speech" (bribery).

[Freedom&Liberty]

I know, Boo. We're too far gone. Even if Paul were elected, I doubt congress would have the resolve to do what needs to be done.

[BooRadley]

I know, Boo. We're too far gone. Even if Paul were elected, I doubt congress would have the resolve to do what needs to be done.

I really think half the purpose of the highly divisive propaganda, both left and right, is to keep people like us, who both know the system's broken, at each other's throats so we're not at theirs.

[coolfun]

I QUOTE MY HERO BUSH

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

ISN'T HE A "GENIUS"!!!!!