Hey! Tea Party Members

[Rohirrim]

Question: Would the tea party support an amendment to the Constitution that states simply that corporations are not persons and are therefore not entitled to the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights?

[Rohirrim]

~crickets~

[W*GS]

Surprised?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/299920_287645957913056_114517875225866_1164233_391 859982_n.jpg

[Taco John]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/299920_287645957913056_114517875225866_1164233_391 859982_n.jpg

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

More like "government relinquished oversight" or "absconded from its regulatory responsibilities" in each instance.

That's government by the highest bidder in action.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

This statement couldn't be more patently false than in the case of Enron.

CA pleaded with Bush to intervene in the Enron swindle, and Bush refused.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It should be obvious...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/314853_2485958151729_1335926495_32880974_440601514 _n.jpg

[baja]

This statement couldn't be more patently false than in the case of Enron.

CA pleaded with Bush to intervene in the Enron swindle, and Bush refused.

I hope Bush gets the credit he deserves for trashing the American economy and the mass transfere of wealth to the top 1% but I doubt he will. Hell given his "No child left behind" program most younger generations won't be able to read about it even if he gets his due recognition.

[alkemical]

It should be obvious...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/314853_2485958151729_1335926495_32880974_440601514 _n.jpg

The Right's view of government and the Left's view of big business are both correct.
Robert Anton Wilson

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Right's view of government and the Left's view of big business are both correct.
Robert Anton Wilson

Government has become no more than a proxy for corporate interests. All that's left is the rule of private interests/the highest bidder.

Therefore, the tea party people are somewhat misguided in attacking government as a separate (and more powerful) entity while turning a blind eye to the merger of corporate interests with government power.

What is needed is not the shrinking or outright dissolution of government - what is needed is the decoupling of government and big money - along with restored government accountability.

[Spider]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

naw that aint true .......

[ant1999e]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

But LABF's cartoon and Spider say different. Never question a cartoon (neither LABF or Spider).

[ant1999e]

Government has become no more than a proxy for corporate interests. All that's left is the rule of private interests/the highest bidder.

Therefore, the tea party people are somewhat misguided in attacking government as a separate (and more powerful) entity while turning a blind eye to the merger of corporate interests with government power.

What is needed is not the shrinking or outright dissolution of government - what is needed is the decoupling of government and big money - along with restored government accountability.

And the 99%ers are only attacking corporations.
I do agree with your last statement.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But LABF's cartoon and Spider say different. Never question a cartoon (neither LABF or Spider).

Had to make sure there was something in this thread for you.

Lord knows you're incapable of processing the actual arguments. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the 99%ers are only attacking corporations.


You couldn't be more wrong.

They are not sparing the Obama administration.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But LABF's cartoon and Spider say different. Never question a cartoon (neither LABF or Spider).

Interesting that you note the graphic I posted (not a cartoon) but ignore my actual reply to the TJ comment you quoted.

Very selective indeed.

[ant1999e]

Interesting that you note the graphic I posted (not a cartoon) but ignore my actual reply to the TJ comment you quoted.

Very selective indeed.

Hilarious!Speaking of selective, you only had a response for one of the three. What about the other? No way you could deny government oversight in those debacles.

[ant1999e]

You couldn't be more wrong.

They are not sparing the Obama administration.

You may be right. The only thing I've personally seen is here in Vegas they had a few teenagers on Fremont Street drinking 40's holding signs about fluoride in the water and a new world order.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious!Speaking of selective, you only had a response for one of the three. What about the other? No way you could deny government oversight in those debacles.

That's because I thought the other two were obvious.

Removal of Glass-Steagall --> banking and financial swindle.

Removal of regs on oil companies --> BP disaster.

[Spider]

But LABF's cartoon and Spider say different. Never question a cartoon (neither LABF or Spider).

bout dayum time you learned , every argument you have got into with me you have lost hands down .......

[alkemical]

You may be right. The only thing I've personally seen is here in Vegas they had a few teenagers on Fremont Street drinking 40's holding signs about fluoride in the water and a new world order.

They aren't sparing Obama. I have some literature and they firmly cite Obama as a continuation of the problem.

[ant1999e]

bout dayum time you learned , every argument you have got into with me you have lost hands down .......

You're delusional.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They aren't sparing Obama. I have some literature and they firmly cite Obama as a continuation of the problem.

Yep.

And he is.

[Rohirrim]

You want an education on corporate personhood? Read this:

Field was as much concerned with protecting business investments as he was with working the Lord's will. He was heavily invested in railroads and other industries that came before the Court, so much so that the chief justice at the time pressed him not to weigh in on certain cases. "There was no doubt of your intimate personal relations with the managers of the Central Pacific, and it would tend to discredit the opinion if it came from someone known as the personal friend of the parties representing these railroad interests," the chief justice warned Field, according to Jack Beatty's "Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900."

Field didn't have the votes of his high court colleagues to directly insert corporate personhood into law, so he exploited another aspect of the Reconstruction-era legal system to work the railroads' will. Congress had forbidden the Court from reviewing certain cases, (presciently) concerned that the justices would undermine the work legislators was doing, even the new constitutional amendments. As a compromise, Congress allowed justices to continue to sit occasionally on the circuit courts. When sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California, Field repeatedly wrote into his decisions that corporations were persons. Those decisions became precedents in the 9th Circuit, but nowhere else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html

No doubt Scalia, Roberts, Alito, et al knew this history. They just ignored it to give their corporate friends what they wanted. I don't doubt that pretty soon, they'll want to revisit the "liberty of contract" interpretations as well.

[Garcia Bronco]

Question: Would the tea party support an amendment to the Constitution that states simply that corporations are not persons and are therefore not entitled to the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights?

I would not support such an amendment. As a business owner it is my right to make sure my business can operate in the market place, which can include doing business with the Government or petitioning the government.

[Garcia Bronco]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

Exactly

[alkemical]

I would not support such an amendment. As a business owner it is my right to make sure my business can operate in the market place, which can include doing business with the Government or petitioning the government.


Ah, bribery to fix the market because you're too lazy to compete. Gotchya.

[Rohirrim]

Government had oversight in each of these items, and ultimately was a key player in making them possible.

Read the link in post #25. Now revisit the "oversight of government" in each of those cases and describe what was behind the scenes, influencing the oversight. In each one, it was corporatist control.

[Taco John]

Read the link in post #25. Now revisit the "oversight of government" in each of those cases and describe what was behind the scenes, influencing the oversight. In each one, it was corporatist control.


Oh, I understand what you're angling for. But you keep using the words "corporate control" when it's government that has the power.

Hey, I get it. You believe that there's a way to make big government work "for the people." I find that to be naive - and honestly at this point I find it worse than naive. It's getting to the point of stupidity. But, I don't begrudge anyone for believing that the influence of money could ever be taken out of politics anymore that I begrudge anyone for believing in leprechauns. Have your fun. Make believe! Just don't think that you're going to convince me that these fantasies exist. I understand that when you create a powerful government, you're empowering the powerful and influential at the expense of the people and liberty.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ah, bribery to fix the market because you're too lazy to compete. Gotchya.

It's not a bribe to give money to a candidate that supports my beliefs. Good grief.

[alkemical]

It's not a bribe to give money to a candidate that supports my beliefs. Good grief.

Too lazy to compete.

[Spider]

You're delusional.

and your an idiot ............makes us even I guess

[Rigs11]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/299920_287645957913056_114517875225866_1164233_391 859982_n.jpg

regulations kill job creation! oh wait...

Regulation: Not the job killer GOP says

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Want to help the economy and create jobs? Well, roll back those government regulations! It's a talking point trumpeted by nearly every Republican politician. But would less regulation really spur hiring?

The story goes like this: Thanks to the Obama administration, a wave of new government regulations are strangling business to the detriment of hiring and economic growth.

But in an economy with serious structural problems, a crippled housing market and slack demand, is government regulation really holding back the labor market?

Not so much, according to government data and surveys of business owners and economists.

Only a small percentage of employers report regulation as a reason for laying off workers.

In the first two quarters of this year, only 2,085 new unemployment claims were attributed to government regulation, while 55,759 were tied to insufficient demand, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data on mass layoffs.


Furthermore, less than 20% of small business owners cite government regulations as their most important problem, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Business.
Poor sales, for example, were a much bigger worry.

And a CNNMoney survey of economists conducted in the second quarter delivered similar results. Only a couple of the 16 economists questioned said government regulation was the biggest drag on the labor market.

Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution, said there is little evidence to suggest that government regulations are killing jobs


But there is an additional wrinkle to the Republican argument: It's not just the regulations already on the books that are causing trouble. Instead, it's an anticipated wave of new rules coming down the pike.

"The real cost at the moment is the business community can't figure out how much regulation is coming," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Two measures -- the 2010 health care law, and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law -- are at the center of that complaint.

Burtless doesn't find the "uncertainty" argument convincing.

"Those laws haven't gone into effect yet. How are those things limiting jobs?" he asked. "I think you've got to actually make the case that lots of regulations have sprung up since January 2009 to make this complaint carry very much water."
That doesn't mean regulations don't raise costs for business. They do. Still, they are not the biggest drag on the labor market.

"In the end, if you've got money pouring in hand over fist, additional costs of any sort look insignificant," Holtz-Eakin said.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/14/news/economy/regulation_job_creation/?source=cnn_bin

[Garcia Bronco]

Too lazy to compete.

I don't know if they came up there and told ya, but looking out for one's political beliefs in the market place is competing.

[Rohirrim]

Oh, I understand what you're angling for. But you keep using the words "corporate control" when it's government that has the power.

Hey, I get it. You believe that there's a way to make big government work "for the people." I find that to be naive - and honestly at this point I find it worse than naive. It's getting to the point of stupidity. But, I don't begrudge anyone for believing that the influence of money could ever be taken out of politics anymore that I begrudge anyone for believing in leprechauns. Have your fun. Make believe! Just don't think that you're going to convince me that these fantasies exist. I understand that when you create a powerful government, you're empowering the powerful and influential at the expense of the people and liberty.

As would be the case in any government conceived by man, including a libertarian government. Face it, humans are flawed creatures. There are those who will seek to corrupt any system you create. That's why systems of government must evolve. We are at the point in our Republic where we have to incorporate new laws and amendments to end the corrupting influence of corporations in our government and restore the voice of the people. That will require an amendment to the Constitution removing this bull**** "personhood" of corporations, and intensive campaign finance reform. Once representation is restored to the people, let them decide the power of government.

To use some ideological solution and simply shrink the government to powerlessness is to take the chain off the corporate junkyard dog, pat him on the head, and say, "You be a good boy now." Government power is not the problem. Who controls the government is the problem. Ours was designed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is no longer that, and hasn't been for awhile.

I know where you're coming from, too. Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world. He thinks that if you simply do away with government that some magical force will bring balance and equity to the world. Like unicorns.

[Spider]

I don't know if they came up there and told ya, but looking out for one's political beliefs in the market place is competing.

LOL it is not , it is buying favor ........ you are kidding yourself

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, I understand what you're angling for. But you keep using the words "corporate control" when it's government that has the power.

You really have things backwards here.

Government, as we know it today, only exists as a proxy for private interests/the highest bidder.

Our "representatives" have no power except for that which is bestowed on them by the private interests who purchase their seats.

The big and powerful government you're railing against is a figment of your imagination. It doesn't exist.



Hey, I get it. You believe that there's a way to make big government work "for the people." I find that to be naive - and honestly at this point I find it worse than naive. It's getting to the point of stupidity.

Then you must also consider the framers of the Constitution "naive and stupid."



But, I don't begrudge anyone for believing that the influence of money could ever be taken out of politics anymore that I begrudge anyone for believing in leprechauns.

If you're an American, and if you believe in the form of government the framers intended, then you have to believe just that.

You have to fight for it every day of your life.

That's what it means to be an American.

I understand that when you create a powerful government, you're empowering the powerful and influential at the expense of the people and liberty.

Just the reverse is true.

Last time we had a truly powerful government, we created the greatest and most widely shared era of prosperity in American history.

But I understand your skepticism - you're too young to remember what life in America was like before the Reagan revolution.

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL it is not , it is buying favor ........ you are kidding yourself

Maybe if I was the only one doing it.

[Garcia Bronco]

You really have things backwards here.

Government, as we know it today, only exists as a proxy for private interests.

That's always been the case. Read Federalist Papaer number 10

[Rohirrim]

That's always been the case. Read Federalist Papaer number 10

Read the links in post #25.

[Taco John]

To use some ideological solution and simply shrink the government to powerlessness is to take the chain off the corporate junkyard dog, pat him on the head, and say, "You be a good boy now."

Uh, no.

Government is the teeth that corporations use to rip our throats out. You want to keep those teeth sharp but pretend that there's a system in which the rich and powerful won't be able to gain access to those teeth. It's a fantasy, nothing more.

[Taco John]

I know where you're coming from, too. Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world. He thinks that if you simply do away with government that some magical force will bring balance and equity to the world. Like unicorns.

Neither Ron Paul, nor I believe in "simply doing away with government."

We can't even have a discussion on this because you've got blinders on. You insist on big government, and any ideas that there is a proper role of government that doesn't fit in your big government paradigm, you view as beneath progress. It's not even worth having a conversation with you (or most lefitsts) because there's no conversation to be had. You want to chase your tail and call it intellectualism. I'm content in letting you do so.

Enjoy the rounds!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Uh, no.

Government is the teeth that corporations use to rip our throats out.

Not sure if you're trying to extend Ro's "junkyard dog" metaphor here?

If so, then your solution is to put the dog down while the liberal alternative is obedience training for the dog.

You want to keep those teeth sharp but pretend that there's a system in which the rich and powerful won't be able to gain access to those teeth. It's a fantasy, nothing more.

It's called "democracy." :wave:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Neither Ron Paul, nor I believe in "simply doing away with government."

We can't even have a discussion on this because you've got blinders on. You insist on big government, and any ideas that there is a proper role of government that doesn't fit in your big government paradigm, you view as beneath progress. It's not even worth having a conversation with you (or most lefitsts) because there's no conversation to be had. You want to chase your tail and call it intellectualism. I'm content in letting you do so.

Enjoy the rounds!

Straw man.

Not "big" government - accountable and functional government.

And, yes, that goal is accomplished, in part, by trimming the fat and eliminating needless bureaucracy.

[alkemical]

I don't know if they came up there and told ya, but looking out for one's political beliefs in the market place is competing.

Fixing markets is not competing, it's lazy.

[Garcia Bronco]

Fixing markets is not competing, it's lazy.

It's not "fixing" the market. Further, if someone like yourself was trying to pass legislation that would affect my business, then it's perfectly reasonable that I invest my money back into my business via a lobby to defeat you.

You have once again proven that you really don't understand how this stuff works or what's really going on in the business world and how politics intersects.

[Rohirrim]

Neither Ron Paul, nor I believe in "simply doing away with government."

We can't even have a discussion on this because you've got blinders on. You insist on big government, and any ideas that there is a proper role of government that doesn't fit in your big government paradigm, you view as beneath progress. It's not even worth having a conversation with you (or most lefitsts) because there's no conversation to be had. You want to chase your tail and call it intellectualism. I'm content in letting you do so.

Enjoy the rounds!

I don't care about the size of government. I care about who is running it.

[Taco John]

I don't care about the size of government. I care about who is running it.


I know. You are always focused on the symptoms, and not the source. This is not news to me.

Fact: people who lust for power will always be attracted to government.
Fact: people who lust for power also lust for money.
Fact: the larger government is, the more power these people have.
Fact: the only way this paradigm changes is by limiting the size and scope of government.


As far as corporate personhood goes, I agree that they're not people. People are people. I think corporations have received protections that they should not have. This is part of the problem. What is a corporation but a government entity? The whole point of forming a corporation is to socialize your liability and decrease your individual risk. What's the point of that? Ask yourself that. What's the point of indefinitely socializing the risks of businesses?

Why incorporate? Ask yourself about the source of this function. What are the tradeoffs?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSmfHq6SM7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[alkemical]

It's not "fixing" the market. Further, if someone like yourself was trying to pass legislation that would affect my business, then it's perfectly reasonable that I invest my money back into my business via a lobby to defeat you.

You have once again proven that you really don't understand how this stuff works or what's really going on in the business world and how politics intersects.

Sure it is, it's that you don't want to admit what it is at it's very core. Anti-Trust & Monopoly litigation are often used against competitors to...wait for it.... LOCK OUT COMPETITION! This is helped by purchasing political capital.

It's quite obvious to everyone here, that it's you who has very little understanding of how these situations really work - and keep sticking to ideological fantasies of how things SHOULD work.

The facts are facts - Corporations want rights to buy political influence to keep competition away. That's how business is done. Or maybe you've missed the lawsuits apple flung @ samsung to keep them from creeping into the cellphone market dominance that Apple has enjoyed - I can keep inserting examples to show how this illustration drains tax monies by locking up companies in litigation. (until the courts decision)

This is a result of Corporations wanting a fixed and exclusive market. Corporations don't want competition. Business is much easier when you rig the game.

[Rohirrim]

I know. You are always focused on the symptoms, and not the source. This is not news to me.

Fact: people who lust for power will always be attracted to government.
Fact: people who lust for power also lust for money.
Fact: the larger government is, the more power these people have.
Fact: the only way this paradigm changes is by limiting the size and scope of government.


As far as corporate personhood goes, I agree that they're not people. People are people. I think corporations have received protections that they should not have. This is part of the problem. What is a corporation but a government entity? The whole point of forming a corporation is to socialize your liability and decrease your individual risk. What's the point of that? Ask yourself that. What's the point of indefinitely socializing the risks of businesses?

Why incorporate? Ask yourself about the source of this function. What are the tradeoffs?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSmfHq6SM7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In the Founders' day, corporations were extremely limited in size and regulated, not only in function, but in lifespan. Looking over two hundred years of history, you see the growth and powers of corporations (especially banks and financial firms) expanding to the size we see today, into global powers that dictate the actions of nations. They bought the regulations and laws, piece by piece, over decades, that gave them this power. The only tool the people have for fighting that power is government. First, they must control the reins of government (something they don't have now). Remove the power of government to fight the corporations and you simply surrender to the global oligarchy. The field of battle will be empty, and they'll be the only ones left standing. Then what? Economic serfdom (which is already taking place).

Hell, yes, the corporations are working as hard as they can, and spending as much as they can, to unilaterally shrink the power of government.

What we need to do now is not attack the size of government, but use the power of government (like TR did) to limit the scope and power of corporations, beginning with the pirates on Wall Street who destroyed our economy. While Goldman Sachs is sitting in the White House, the American people are ****ed.

What you are advocating is to keep the government a brothel, but make it a smaller brothel.

[alkemical]

One thing I do support/sympathize with the #Occupy sentiment is that those on Wall Street & Gov't who 'participated' in the banking collapse were not punished - they were rewarded.

That's something I'd like to see changed in the future: Accountability, Investigation & Punishment for those that participated in the scam.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fact: people who lust for power will always be attracted to government.

The flaw in this premise: Such people exist, no doubt, but this isn't the ONLY type of person who is attracted to politics. If you don't believe people who are basically good and who care about America's health and well-being still exist, then why would you participate in politics at all?

Fact: people who lust for power also lust for money.

See above.

Fact: the larger government is, the more power these people have.

The size of government isn't as significant as the type of people we choose to run it. Take the money out of politics, make the government accountable to the people again, and the size issue will take care of itself.

Fact: the only way this paradigm changes is by limiting the size and scope of government.

And then what?

What happens when you and your fellow Norquist acolytes succeed at drowning government in the bathtub?

Do you replace government with the rule of private interests and the already-discredited premise that the "free market" will always correct itself, can police itself, and always has humanity's best interests at heart?

That's exactly the kind of thinking that led us into the quagmire we're in today.

.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In the Founders' day, corporations were extremely limited in size and regulated, not only in function, but in lifespan. Looking over two hundred years of history, you see the growth and powers of corporations (especially banks and financial firms) expanding to the size we see today, into global powers that dictate the actions of nations. They bought the regulations and laws, piece by piece, over decades, that gave them this power. The only tool the people have for fighting that power is government. First, they must control the reins of government (something they don't have now). Remove the power of government to fight the corporations and you simply surrender to the global oligarchy. The field of battle will be empty, and they'll be the only ones left standing. Then what? Economic serfdom (which is already taking place).

Hell, yes, the corporations are working as hard as they can, and spending as much as they can, to unilaterally shrink the power of government.

What we need to do now is not attack the size of government, but use the power of government (like TR did) to limit the scope and power of corporations, beginning with the pirates on Wall Street who destroyed our economy. While Goldman Sachs is sitting in the White House, the American people are ****ed.

What you are advocating is to keep the government a brothel, but make it a smaller brothel.

Well-put, and right on the money. :thumbsup:

[Taco John]

The only tool the people have for fighting that power is the constitution.


Fixed that for you. The first step is electing a president who understands and respects the constitution, and the limits of government. You're voting for Obama again, right?

[Taco John]

In the Founders' day, corporations were extremely limited in size and regulated, not only in function, but in lifespan. Looking over two hundred years of history, you see the growth and powers of corporations (especially banks and financial firms) expanding to the size we see today, into global powers that dictate the actions of nations. They bought the regulations and laws, piece by piece, over decades, that gave them this power. The only tool the people have for fighting that power is government. First, they must control the reins of government (something they don't have now). Remove the power of government to fight the corporations and you simply surrender to the global oligarchy. The field of battle will be empty, and they'll be the only ones left standing. Then what? Economic serfdom (which is already taking place).

Hell, yes, the corporations are working as hard as they can, and spending as much as they can, to unilaterally shrink the power of government.

What we need to do now is not attack the size of government, but use the power of government (like TR did) to limit the scope and power of corporations, beginning with the pirates on Wall Street who destroyed our economy. While Goldman Sachs is sitting in the White House, the American people are ****ed.

What you are advocating is to keep the government a brothel, but make it a smaller brothel.


All of this is confused babbling to me. Sorry, there's just no discussion that you and I can have. You have goofy ideas about what I believe and it's far too much effort for me to try to correct those ideas than it's reasonably worth.

[Rohirrim]

Fixed that for you. The first step is electing a president who understands and respects the constitution, and the limits of government. You're voting for Obama again, right?

Nope. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils. That's all I've done my whole life. I'm voting for the person who I agree with the most on the most issues. For me, that's Bernie Sanders.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fixed that for you. The first step is electing a president who understands and respects the constitution, and the limits of government. You're voting for Obama again, right?

You can't convince me that you know anything about the Constitution or care about it after this post:

Hey, I get it. You believe that there's a way to make big government work "for the people." I find that to be naive - and honestly at this point I find it worse than naive. It's getting to the point of stupidity.

[Taco John]

The flaw in this premise: Such people exist, no doubt, but this isn't the ONLY type of person who is attracted to politics. If you don't believe people who are basically good and who care about America's health and well-being still exist, then why would you participate in politics at all?

So what? That's a pointless point. It didn't change a single thing I said. I understand that there are good people. That doesn't change the fact that powerful government attracts people who are interested in power.

I can't have a discussion with people like you and Ro because your heads are in the clouds and you have these ideas that talking about these technical non-points some how negate the reality of the nature of government.

Whoop de doo. People with good intentions are sometimes attracted to government too. What a revelation!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

All of this is confused babbling to me.

Then your knowledge of American history and the framers of the Constitution is poorer than I thought.

[W*GS]

That doesn't change the fact that powerful government attracts people who are interested in power.

Powerful X attracts people who are interested in power.

Substitute just about anything for X.

You've not stumbled onto anything amazing.

Of course, weak government has its dangers as well.

[Taco John]

You can't convince me that you know anything about the Constitution or care about it after this post:

Fine with me. I think you guys are off your rocker if you think the framers of the constitution wanted a 'big government', but that's what I get for interrupting the circle jerk.

[Taco John]

Powerful X attracts people who are interested in power.

Substitute just about anything for X.

You've not stumbled onto anything amazing.

Of course, weak government has its dangers as well.

I'm not in favor of a weak government. I want a strong, moral government that is properly limited in its size and scope.

I'm aware that I haven't stumbled on anything amazing with that line of thought. I just can't understand why the anti-wall street people can't get it to sink in.

[Taco John]

Then your knowledge of American history and the framers of the Constitution is poorer than I thought.

I would have to have any amount of respect for your understanding of the constitution to be concerned with this. You guys favor growing government beyond its constitutional boundaries, and wag your finger at me for my understanding of the constitution? I can only laugh.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So what? That's a pointless point. It didn't change a single thing I said. I understand that there are good people. That doesn't change the fact that powerful government attracts people who are interested in power.

Tautology.

The point was that people who are interested in power are not all necessarily evil, as your premise supposes.


I can't have a discussion with people like you and Ro because your heads are in the clouds and you have these ideas that talking about these technical non-points some how negate the reality of the nature of government.


???

That's a really incoherent sentence.

[Taco John]

Tautology.

The point was that people who are interested in power are not all necessarily evil, as your premise supposes.

Not at all. Some of the worst governing known to man has come from people with good intentions.

[W*GS]

Not at all. Some of the worst governing known to man has come from people with good intentions.

Like libertarians?

Oh wait - they've never had political power, but they have lots of "good intentions".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not in favor of a weak government. I want a strong, moral government that is properly limited in its size and scope.

I'm aware that I haven't stumbled on anything amazing with that line of thought. I just can't understand why the anti-wall street people can't get it to sink in.

That you set yourself in ideological opposition the the "anti-Wall Street people" speaks volumes.

Whether you know it or not, you are a corporatist.

[Taco John]

Like libertarians?

Oh wait - they've never had political power, but they have lots of "good intentions".

Our government - more specifically, our constitution - is the crowning achievement of the libertarian movement. Libertarians founded this country. Indeed, they have had political power, and they created for us a "Republic, if you can keep it."

We weren't able to. We now have a mixed social democracy. They took the senate away from the states, and centralized all the power in Washington. You're right, libertarian movement hasn't had much political power in the last century. The progressives have controlled the last 100 years, and here we are today.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not at all. Some of the worst governing known to man has come from people with good intentions.

Even if this premise is true, your conclusion, viz., all who seek power are necessarily evil, doesn't follow.

[Taco John]

That you set yourself in ideological opposition the the "anti-Wall Street people" speaks volumes.

Whether you know it or not, you are a corporatist.


I see you've learned a lot from GWB. "You're either with us or you're against us," in the house.

No, I'm not a corporatist. I want to reduce the power of The State in order to reduce the power of corporations, while increasing the power of the individual, including the individual business man. I understand, though that you GWB "with us or against us" types don't do well with nuance, so feel free to call me a corporatist or whatever label you choose to draw lines between people with.

[W*GS]

Our government - more specifically, our constitution - is the crowning achievement of the libertarian movement. Libertarians founded this country.

Uhhh, no, the FFs weren't libertarian. That's a libertarian myth.

That is, unless you want recreate their world today - disenfranchise women, disenfranchise blacks, re-allow slavery, disenfranchise men who don't own land, etc. etc.

The best ideas about governance and society didn't stop prior to 1800.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see you've learned a lot from GWB. "You're either with us or you're against us," in the house.

No, I'm not a corporatist. I want to reduce the power of The State in order to reduce the power of corporations, while increasing the power of the individual business man. I understand, though that you GWB "with us or against us" types don't do well with nuance, so feel free to call me a corporatist or whatever label you choose to draw lines between people with.

Nice straw man, but no.

As Ro correctly pointed out, the only power we have to fight the hegemony of corporate power is government.

Therefore, to reduce the power of the state, as you put it, is to remove our only safeguard against the thieves who sunk our economy.

[Taco John]

Uhhh, no, the FFs weren't libertarian. That's a libertarian myth.

That is, unless you want recreate their world today - disenfranchise women, disenfranchise blacks, re-allow slavery, disenfranchise men who don't own land, etc. etc.

The best ideas about governance and society didn't stop prior to 1800.

Indeed, they compromised and called it pragmatism. These are compromises that I, personally, wouldn't have made. But, so goes politics. Neverhteless, this nation and constitution is the crowning achievement of the libertarian movement throughout history.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So tell me, TJ:

If it's not government's place to safeguard society against the corporate pirates who just reduced our economy to rubble, then whose job is it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Neverhteless, this nation and constitution is the crowning achievement of the libertarian movement throughout revisionist history.

Fixed. :D

[Taco John]

Nice straw man, but no.

As Ro correctly pointed out, the only power we have to fight the hegemony of corporate power is government.

Therefore, to reduce the power of the state, as you put it, is to remove our only means of protection against the thieves who sunk our economy.

The Federal Reserve sunk our economy. I want to reduce the size and scope of government to constitutional levels. I'm not advocating removing the justice system. It's impossible to have a discussion with you guys due to how scattered your thoughts are.

And as far as Ro's point about the government being the only way to fight corporations, Ro is voting for the guy who received the most money from Wall Street in the history of campaigning, and is set to break new records in receiving that kind of funding in the 2012 cycle. Why should I take anything he says seriously? How is it that you guys are "anti-Wall Street," while voting for the guy who Wall Street owns?

[Taco John]

Fixed. :D

Wow. That's hilarious that you think that.

[Taco John]

So tell me, TJ:

If it's not government's place to safeguard society against the corporate pirates who just reduced our economy to rubble, then whose job is it?


Who said it wasn't the government's place? You are so scatterbrained that you imagine that limiting the size and scope of government to constitutional levels is akin to demolishing government altogether to having no function whatsoever. How can you even approach an intellectual discussion with such a baseless position? You get ignored for the clap-trap clanging gong that you are.

You don't really want to have a discussion. You want to bully people. I've seen you operate over a decade now, and you don't have discussions. You have propaganda rallies, and drown out any semblance of conversation with disconnected strawman takes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Federal Reserve sunk our economy. I want to reduce the size and scope of government to constitutional levels. I'm not advocating removing the justice system. It's impossible to have a discussion with you guys due to how scattered your thoughts are.

And as far as Ro's point about the government being the only way to fight corporations, Ro is voting for the guy who received the most money from Wall Street in the history of campaigning, and is set to break new records in receiving that kind of funding in the 2012 cycle. Why should I take anything he says seriously? How is it that you guys are "anti-Wall Street," while voting for the guy who Wall Street owns?

The Fed had a part in the destruction of the economy, to be sure, but only a corporatist would try to deny or minimize the role of Wall Street and the private lenders/investment banks, etc.

And Ro just said he wasn't going to vote for Obama, so you might want to retract that second paragraph.

[lonestar]

More like "government relinquished oversight" or "absconded from its regulatory responsibilities" in each instance.

That's government by the highest bidder in action.

so sue the government for malfeasance..

quit whinning..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who said it wasn't the government's place? You are so scatterbrained that you imagine that limiting the size and scope of government to constitutional levels is akin to demolishing government altogether to having no function whatsoever. How can you even approach an intellectual discussion with such a baseless position? You get ignored for the clap-trap clanging gong that you are.

You don't really want to have a discussion. You want to bully people. I've seen you operate over a decade now, and you don't have discussions. You have propaganda rallies, and drown out any semblance of conversation with disconnected strawman takes.

I asked you a very simple question, in a respectful tone, and you respond with this string of personal attacks and ad hominem arguments?

I can only assume my question struck some sort of nerve.

In any event, in a previous post you stated unequivocally that you wanted to reduce the power of the state - not just to "limit the size and scope of government."

Do you see the difference?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so sue the government for malfeasance..

quit whinning..

Hey - why don't you go down to the gulf coast and say that to people who lost their livelihoods because of BP.

I want to watch!

[Taco John]

Hey - why don't you go down to the gulf coast and say that to people who lost their livelihoods because of BP.

I want to watch!


Who forced BP into the deep ocean where it's dangerous to drill, rather than the shallower waters where it's much safer? Which administration signed off on the waivers that allowed them to ignore the regulations that were in place?

Here's a hint (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-spill-the-scandal-and-the-president-20100608)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who forced BP into the deep ocean where it's dangerous to drill, rather than the shallower waters where it's much safer?

Politicians who were in the pockets of the oil lobby.


Which administration signed off on the waivers that allowed them to ignore the regulations that were in place?

Are you laboring under the misconception that I'm an Obama apologist?

Here's a hint (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-spill-the-scandal-and-the-president-20100608)

So your solution is what?

Fewer government regulations for companies like BP?

[Rohirrim]

The Federal Reserve sunk our economy. I want to reduce the size and scope of government to constitutional levels. I'm not advocating removing the justice system. It's impossible to have a discussion with you guys due to how scattered your thoughts are.

And as far as Ro's point about the government being the only way to fight corporations, Ro is voting for the guy who received the most money from Wall Street in the history of campaigning, and is set to break new records in receiving that kind of funding in the 2012 cycle. Why should I take anything he says seriously? How is it that you guys are "anti-Wall Street," while voting for the guy who Wall Street owns?

Bernie Sanders is taking the most Wall Street funding? I don't think so. There is no such thing as the "...size and scope of government to constitutional levels." The only thing in the Constitution about the size and scope of government is how many representatives each state gets according to population, how many Senators, etc. And the reason progressives took over a hundred years ago was because the people of America voted them into office, and continued to vote them into office because they believed in their message and their actions. FDR was elected by the people four times.

The whole point of the government was that it was supposed to be controlled by the people and would be adequate to see to the general welfare of the people of the United States, as they saw fit. It has grown and shrunk, over the two centuries as the needs arose. Amendments, laws and regulations have come and gone, as the people have seen fit. Now, I see a government more in control of special interests than any time since about 1890. We need new laws, regulations and amendments to repair it and return the power to the people.

My vote for Obama in the last election was clearly a "better of two bad options" pick. If the only alternative was McCain/Palin, I still say that was better for the country. But, like I said, I'm done with voting for the better of two evils, since that's all the special interests allow to come to election anymore. Like I've been saying for months on this board (which you have missed, obviously), it doesn't matter who is president when it's Goldman Sachs giving the orders.

And my thoughts are not scattered at all. I even have a plan to turn this country around:

1st: Amendment to the Constitution to the effect that corporations are not persons and enjoy none of the rights and privileges of personhood.

2nd: Campaign finance reform: All campaigns publicly financed.

3rd: Change trade policies and regulations so that they are designed to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the America people. The "free market" is a unicorn. Don't believe in it. Do what is best for the people, not for some mythology.

[baja]

You know the small group of globalist elitelist are achieving their goals when you see people arguing political ideologies

Nobody plays one side against the other as a distraction to whats going on like the globalists. Both Democrats and Republicans have been in power over the last 40 years have you seen any significant difference or have you seen a steady downward spiral?

[Rohirrim]

P.S. - The Federal Reserve didn't sink our economy. Wall Street bought enough politicians to overthrow regulations put in place after the Depression, and they then turned our markets into a casino, which then crashed. A deregulated financial industry destroyed our economy.

[Popcorn Sutton]

And the 99%ers are only attacking corporations.
I do agree with your last statement.

I have seen an awful lot of protests on the news that centered around the Federal Reserve.

I agree there are a lot of idiots that are blaming Wall Street and corporations but some are actually wise to the game and realize its a combination of things.

The Vegas style handling of billions of dollars (derivatives, CDOs, subprime loans etc. etc.) on Wall Street and big banks might not happen if they didn't have the backing of the money printing machine at the Fed.

As of now, 5 major banking institutions hold 96% of the derivatives and they know full well they can depend on the Fed to bail them out if those risky investments go bad.

[Popcorn Sutton]

P.S. - The Federal Reserve didn't sink our economy. Wall Street bought enough politicians to overthrow regulations put in place after the Depression, and they then turned our markets into a casino, which then crashed. A deregulated financial industry destroyed our economy.

Ro, I agree that greedy banking has a role in this and proper regulations could had slowed the tide.

However, you have to admit that we could never put enough bureaucrats in place to police every little scheme they come up with on Wall Street. They'll always be a step behind.

However, if these institutions didn't have the backing of a Federal Reserve that will create money out of thin air to bail them out; they might think twice about the risk they are taking.

The Fed is what allows both the politicians and bankers to perpetuate too big to fail. If we weren't able to print money at will, there would be nothing there to bail them out.

[Rohirrim]

Ro, I agree that greedy banking has a role in this and proper regulations could had slowed the tide.

However, you have to admit that we could never put enough bureaucrats in place to police every little scheme they come up with on Wall Street. They'll always be a step behind.

However, if these institutions didn't have the backing of a Federal Reserve that will create money out of thin air to bail them out; they might think twice about the risk they are taking.

The Fed is what allows both the politicians and bankers to perpetuate too big to fail. If we weren't able to print money at will, there would be nothing there to bail them out.

I'm all for auditing and controlling the Fed. I just can't figure out who should do it. It's supposed to come under the oversight of Congress, the organization with the worst favorability polls in the country. Could you imagine what would happen if the rabid partisan politics of this country started infiltrating the Fed? You're right, though. If the Fed wasn't feeding the money, many of these problems wouldn't exist. I would rather implement the changes I spoke about above first, and then, once we have the majority of special interests out of the way, then we can disarm the Fed. If we try it now, it will be special interests doing the work for their own benefit.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm all for auditing and controlling the Fed. I just can't figure out who should do it. It's supposed to come under the oversight of Congress, the organization with the worst favorability polls in the country. Could you imagine what would happen if the rabid partisan politics of this country started infiltrating the Fed? You're right, though. If the Fed wasn't feeding the money, many of these problems wouldn't exist. I would rather implement the changes I spoke about above first, and then, once we have the majority of special interests out of the way, then we can disarm the Fed. If we try it now, it will be special interests doing the work for their own benefit.

End it. Get rid of it.

All the Fed does is create debt and debase the currency. You think it isn't working for special interests already?

You know who owns the Fed right? You know who many of the prominent players are in the Fed right?

It is already in the hands of special interests and it all links back to bankers and Wall Street.

[Popcorn Sutton]

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm

[Rohirrim]

End it. Get rid of it.

All the Fed does is create debt and debase the currency. You think it isn't working for special interests already?

You know who owns the Fed right? You know who many of the prominent players are in the Fed right?

It is already in the hands of special interests and it all links back to bankers and Wall Street.

The difficulty is that modern society, with its size, complexity, and technology, requires capital markets of a corresponding scale. We are no longer agrarians making shoes on the side, like Adam Smith wrote about. We have a world connected economy. A blip in Japan causes a blip everywhere else. Could we control devastating, worldwide economic swings without a powerful, central bank? Before the Fed, at the dawn of industrial America, people like JP Morgan tempered the swings of the economy with their own money.

The excesses of Wall Street forced the Fed to respond in order to ameliorate the effects on the whole economy, but the nasty fact is that the lines have disappeared between Wall Street and the Fed. This is one reason why Glass-Steagle existed, to keep banking and investment separate. We can see what happened when that barrier went down. The only reason we need a market is to capitalize industry, innovation and business growth. I still argue that we need the power to go in there and put those barriers of law and regulation back in place so there cannot be excesses and out of control greed in the future. And I still say that Obama's biggest mistake was his failure to indict some of these bastards for blatant fraud.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The difficulty is that modern society, with its size, complexity, and technology, requires capital markets of a corresponding scale. We are no longer agrarians making shoes on the side, like Adam Smith wrote about. We have a world connected economy. A blip in Japan causes a blip everywhere else. Could we control devastating, worldwide economic swings without a powerful, central bank? Before the Fed, at the dawn of industrial America, people like JP Morgan tempered the swings of the economy with their own money.

The excesses of Wall Street forced the Fed to respond in order to ameliorate the effects on the whole economy, but the nasty fact is that the lines have disappeared between Wall Street and the Fed. This is one reason why Glass-Steagle existed, to keep banking and investment separate. We can see what happened when that barrier went down. The only reason we need a market is to capitalize industry, innovation and business growth. I still argue that we need the power to go in there and put those barriers of law and regulation back in place so there cannot be excesses and out of control greed in the future. And I still say that Obama's biggest mistake was his failure to indict some of these bastards for blatant fraud.

So, what you are saying is that we live in such a complex society now, the only way to handle a blip in Japan or a devastating economic swing (often a result of Fed policy) is to print money and perpetually deflate the value of a dollar? The Fed plays a major role in creating the bubbles we've seen over the last 30 years. The Fed is the reason we can go to war without any regard for $$. Print, print, print. Actually, just add a few more zeroes into the computer system but you know what I mean.

The Fed is all about credit and fractional reserve banking. There could still be credit in a world with no Fed. It would be harder to come by but the banks would have the $$ to back it and you wouldn't have situations where trillions of dollars are at risk due to casino style gambling with funny money.

There doesn't have to be a single currency does there? Why not have competing currencies backed by something other than thin air? Let the market adjust based on values. I don't know... just throwing out ideas.

If the Fed wasn't handing out loans (printing money) for the hell of it; would the value of homes in the US have risen so quickly? Or, would they prices be more realistic? Do you think banks would have made it so easy to get a home knowing that if the loans fail it is their ass on the line? Do you think the builders would have built hundreds of thousands of homes hoping that the buyers would come? You get the point.

The value of the dollar has diminished 95% since the creation of the Fed. I don't see a way out of this casino style gambling you aptly point out--without getting rid of the system that allows the creation of money out of thin air.

[baja]

<b>End it. Get rid of it.</b>

All the Fed does is create debt and debase the currency. You think it isn't working for special interests already?

You know who owns the Fed right? You know who many of the prominent players are in the Fed right?

It is already in the hands of special interests and it all links back to bankers and Wall Street.

That is what JFK was about to do so they had him killed, same with Bobby K.

[Rohirrim]

So, what you are saying is that we live in such a complex society now, the only way to handle a blip in Japan or a devastating economic swing (often a result of Fed policy) is to print money and perpetually deflate the value of a dollar? The Fed plays a major role in creating the bubbles we've seen over the last 30 years. The Fed is the reason we can go to war without any regard for $$. Print, print, print. Actually, just add a few more zeroes into the computer system but you know what I mean.

The Fed is all about credit and fractional reserve banking. There could still be credit in a world with no Fed. It would be harder to come by but the banks would have the $$ to back it and you wouldn't have situations where trillions of dollars are at risk due to casino style gambling with funny money.

There doesn't have to be a single currency does there? Why not have competing currencies backed by something other than thin air? Let the market adjust based on values. I don't know... just throwing out ideas.

If the Fed wasn't handing out loans (printing money) for the hell of it; would the value of homes in the US have risen so quickly? Or, would they prices be more realistic? Do you think banks would have made it so easy to get a home knowing that if the loans fail it is their ass on the line? Do you think the builders would have built hundreds of thousands of homes hoping that the buyers would come? You get the point.

The value of the dollar has diminished 95% since the creation of the Fed. I don't see a way out of this casino style gambling you aptly point out--without getting rid of the system that allows the creation of money out of thin air.

You may be right, I don't know. That's the problem. The **** has gotten so complex it's totally over the average citizen's head, including mine. One of the worst thing I learned during this whole fiasco is that Wall Street brought in physicists who designed some of the derivatives schemes and there are PHD economists out there who can't explain them. I remember listening to the radio for days after the housing bubble crash with NPR hosts asking economists to explain what is happening and they're going, "Blah, blah, blah" and it was clear they had no ****ing idea!

Now, I'm reading that there are these economic theorists out there positing the idea that the economy as it is, because of technology and contraction, can no longer supply enough jobs for the population that exists, those who are unemployed will be unemployed from now on and more will be joining their ranks. We've come to the end of "growth." Sometimes, you get a glimpse behind the curtain and get a whiff that our entire economic system is just a major fail waiting to happen.

I'm trying to save up and buy a farm. ;D

[Popcorn Sutton]

You may be right, I don't know. That's the problem. The **** has gotten so complex it's totally over the average citizen's head, including mine. One of the worst thing I learned during this whole fiasco is that Wall Street brought in physicists who designed some of the derivatives schemes and there are PHD economists out there who can't explain them. I remember listening to the radio for days after the housing bubble crash with NPR hosts asking economists to explain what is happening and they're going, "Blah, blah, blah" and it was clear they had no ****ing idea!

Now, I'm reading that there are these economic theorists out there positing the idea that the economy as it is, because of technology and contraction, can no longer supply enough jobs for the population that exists, those who are unemployed will be unemployed from now on and more will be joining their ranks. We've come to the end of "growth." Sometimes, you get a glimpse behind the curtain and get a whiff that our entire economic system is just a major fail waiting to happen.

I'm trying to save up and buy a farm. ;D

Which, IMO, is why regulations is not the answer. How many PHD economists would it take to regulate the system? Would they have any success?

If the banks didn't have the backing of the Fed; my guess is they would be a little more careful with their money. If that can be accomplished by auditing the Fed--I'm all for it. I have my doubts.

[Spider]

Who forced BP into the deep ocean where it's dangerous to drill, rather than the shallower waters where it's much safer? Which administration signed off on the waivers that allowed them to ignore the regulations that were in place?

Here's a hint (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-spill-the-scandal-and-the-president-20100608)

Dangerous to Drill ? Deep water ? ......PS you better clue Canadians in on this new found info you have , cause Canada been drilling in depths of water over 10,000 feet and no accidents ...... Better rush that memo bro , before sumthin bad happens ;-)

[ant1999e]

Ah, bribery to fix the market because you're too lazy to compete. Gotchya.

Ever since you got that "Obama Money" you've really become biased.

[lonestar]

Dangerous to Drill ? Deep water ? ......PS you better clue Canadians in on this new found info you have , cause Canada been drilling in depths of water over 10,000 feet and no accidents ...... Better rush that memo bro , before sumthin bad happens ;-)

Not many Huricanes up there are there..

[Spider]

Not many Huricanes up there are there..

and , was there one when the bp B.O.E. blew ?
still doesnt chane the fact that TJ was miles off on the depth bein dangerous , everyone knows it was a faulty B.P.O.E that failed and not the depth of the water ..........

[Spider]

but see lonestar this is the difference in you and me , you will make excuses for your party , u will put party before country , you dont care whats good for this country , all you care about blamin democrats , I am a card carrying union supporting Dem , I support coal , fossil fuels , Nuke power , I supported Junior goin into afghanistan , not Iraq , I supported Obama killed OBL , and this other ass wipe, I supported Obama in stepping up the heat in Afhanistan , why ? cause thats were our fight is , and what r u doing ? playin the role of a butt hurt drama queen blammin Obama for things out of his control ....
Now the BP blow out in the gulf wasnt on any political party , it was and still is on BP , they used the wrong BPOE , Canada been drilling in depths deeper then that , no problems ....... Hurricanes my ass ........LMAO you idiot

[Taco John]

Dangerous to Drill ? Deep water ? ......PS you better clue Canadians in on this new found info you have , cause Canada been drilling in depths of water over 10,000 feet and no accidents ...... Better rush that memo bro , before sumthin bad happens ;-)

So have Americans. No one said it was impossible, just that there are higher risks involved.

[Spider]

So have Americans. No one said it was impossible, just that there are higher risks involved.

what risk ? there is no more risk then drilling on the side of a mountain if safety protocols are followed ........ But you clearly stated that is was the depth in your first post ........ There is more risk in Fraqing , then drilling

[Spider]

So have Americans. No one said it was impossible, just that there are higher risks involved.

we have ? could have swore transocean did it ....... you know a company out of Norway ......
The deal with Canadians is ,you drill anywhere in Canada , you got strict safety protocols to follow , dont even think of using a wrong BPOE ....... even your drill collars are under a strict guideline

[Spider]

oh I forgot to mention lack of Hurricanes :rofl:

[Garcia Bronco]

All of this is confused babbling to me. Sorry, there's just no discussion that you and I can have. You have goofy ideas about what I believe and it's far too much effort for me to try to correct those ideas than it's reasonably worth.

Excellent point I-Diddy. I spend a bunch of time correcting their assumptions about my views.

[ant1999e]

Who said it wasn't the government's place? You are so scatterbrained that you imagine that limiting the size and scope of government to constitutional levels is akin to demolishing government altogether to having no function whatsoever. How can you even approach an intellectual discussion with such a baseless position? You get ignored for the clap-trap clanging gong that you are.

You don't really want to have a discussion. You want to bully people. I've seen you operate over a decade now, and you don't have discussions. You have propaganda rallies, and drown out any semblance of conversation with disconnected strawman takes.
Bravo Sir, well said.:notworthy

[ant1999e]

I have seen an awful lot of protests on the news that centered around the Federal Reserve.

I agree there are a lot of idiots that are blaming Wall Street and corporations but some are actually wise to the game and realize its a combination of things.

The Vegas style handling of billions of dollars (derivatives, CDOs, subprime loans etc. etc.) on Wall Street and big banks might not happen if they didn't have the backing of the money printing machine at the Fed.

As of now, 5 major banking institutions hold 96% of the derivatives and they know full well they can depend on the Fed to bail them out if those risky investments go bad.

I don't think all these guys are crazy. I do think, like the Tea Party, they've been hijacked. I seen a few of these guys at Fremont Street here in Vegas. Bunch of young guys drinking 40's holding signs about Zionists controlling the world and flouride in water.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Where’s Terry Roosevelt and his trust-busting when you need him? 1/2 of 1 percent controls 99% of the wealth in this country. How did we come to allow ourselves to be turned into serfs? This isn’t capitalism anymore, it’s feudalism. Soon the majority of us won’t own anything. The mortgage crisis, bankrupting of our 401Ks, termination of meaningful labor rights, and devastation of our national economy was just the foundation. Once Social Security and Medicare are abolished then we will be a populace solely dependent on the plutocrats for our shelter, our food, our clothes, our survival.

How any working-class person, Teabagger or not, can defend this atrocity against Americans and the founding principles of our nation is inconceivable. Everyone should be involved in an “occupy” movement, these neo-feudal lords with their corporate person-hood protections will enslave us all, regardless of political affiliation.

[lonestar]

Where’s Terry Roosevelt and his trust-busting when you need him? 1/2 of 1 percent controls 99% of the wealth in this country. How did we come to allow ourselves to be turned into serfs? This isn’t capitalism anymore, it’s feudalism. Soon the majority of us won’t own anything. The mortgage crisis, bankrupting of our 401Ks, termination of meaningful labor rights, and devastation of our national economy was just the foundation. Once Social Security and Medicare are abolished then we will be a populace solely dependent on the plutocrats for our shelter, our food, our clothes, our survival.

How any working-class person, Teabagger or not, can defend this atrocity against Americans and the founding principles of our nation is inconceivable. Everyone should be involved in an “occupy” movement, these neo-feudal lords with their corporate person-hood protections will enslave us all, regardless of political affiliation.

first it sounds like your jealous, and second how did it happen?

by voting in liberal progressives year after year.

Who do nothing but pander to the poor and DO NOTHING to fix it..But of course line their pockets..

I realize you will never get it..

but I had to say it after all.

BTW those same folks pay about 80% of the taxes you want redistributed..

[lonestar]

and , was there one when the bp B.O.E. blew ?
still doesnt chane the fact that TJ was miles off on the depth bein dangerous , everyone knows it was a faulty B.P.O.E that failed and not the depth of the water ..........

Thanks for reminding that it was not mother natures fault.

IIRC it was YOUR party and admistration that ok'd the downgrading of those devices..

[Spider]

IIRC it was YOUR party and admistration that ok'd the downgrading of those devices..

huh ? ............LMAO ok who are you ....... you was doin good until this .....

[lonestar]

but see lonestar this is the difference in you and me , you will make excuses for your party , u will put party before country , you dont care whats good for this country , all you care about blamin democrats , I am a card carrying union supporting Dem , I support coal , fossil fuels , Nuke power , I supported Junior goin into afghanistan , not Iraq , I supported Obama killed OBL , and this other ass wipe, I supported Obama in stepping up the heat in Afhanistan , why ? cause thats were our fight is , and what r u doing ? playin the role of a butt hurt drama queen blammin Obama for things out of his control ....
Now the BP blow out in the gulf wasnt on any political party , it was and still is on BP , they used the wrong BPOE , Canada been drilling in depths deeper then that , no problems ....... Hurricanes my ass ........LMAO you idiot

Yet you do not even understand I'm a registered Democrat..

SO when I try to hold the morons feet to the fire it is my party....

your telling me that the Nobama Administration did not ok the change in the devices that caused the issue?

Time to lower the retoric becaus efor the most part I am looking for the same things you are.. a better qualtity of life for myself and kids..

As for huricanes that is one of the biggest worries of the hand wringers about deep water drilling or for that matter any off shore drilling..

 

[Spider]

Yet you do not even understand I'm a registered Democrat..

SO when I try to hold the morons feet to the fire it is my party....

your telling me that the Nobama Administration did not ok the change in the devices that caused the issue?

Time to lower the retoric becaus efor the most part I am looking for the same things you are.. a better qualtity of life for myself and kids..

As for huricanes that is one of the biggest worries of the hand wringers about deep water drilling or for that matter any off shore drilling..
  LMAO you holding someones feet to the fire ? on the orange mane no less ... how is that working for ya ?
No Obama admin didnt , If Push comes to shove , you can trace this all the way back to Cheney and his closed door meeting in 2000 ,
and just cause the Roadless rule and the regs loosened didnt mean these companies had to lower their standards right ? ..........
LMAO name one disaster in the patch on or off shore due to mother nature ?
I am going to break your heart here kiddo , but more oil seeps into our water is whats called down the drain , then any disaster ............
Down the Drain = people changin their oil and not disposing of it properly

[lonestar]

LMAO you holding someones feet to the fire ? on the orange mane no less ... how is that working for ya ?
No Obama admin didnt , If Push comes to shove , you can trace this all the way back to Cheney and his closed door meeting in 2000 ,
and just cause the Roadless rule and the regs loosened didnt mean these companies had to lower their standards right ? ..........
LMAO name one disaster in the patch on or off shore due to mother nature ?
I am going to break your heart here kiddo , but more oil seeps into our water is whats called down the drain , then any disaster ............
Down the Drain = people changin their oil and not disposing of it properly

now please tell me from what I have quoted and I even hilited in red about Hurricanes

Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Yet you do not even understand I'm a registered Democrat..

SO when I try to hold the morons feet to the fire it is my party....

your telling me that the Nobama Administration did not ok the change in the devices that caused the issue?

Time to lower the retoric becaus efor the most part I am looking for the same things you are.. a better qualtity of life for myself and kids..

As for huricanes that is one of the biggest worries of the hand wringers about deep water drilling or for that matter any off shore drilling..

maybe I missed something in my post or your response..

I said worries of hand wringers.

as for not disposing of "changed oil" properly I agree with you..

See there is common ground. after all..:rofl:

[Bronx33]

End it now and put spider on ignore he sees and accepts zero reasoning hes a tuned up opinionated trucker with access to the internet ( you have been warned)

[Spider]

now please tell me from what I have quoted and I even hilited in red about Hurricanes


maybe I missed something in my post or your response..

I said worries of hand wringers.

as for not disposing of "changed oil" properly I agree with you..

See there is common ground. after all..:rofl:

my point is , I think you are confused , Refineries have more to fear over hurricanes then drilling , my point is , when safety protocols are followed drilling is a very safe operation , I dont know why you brought up Hurricanes in the first place ...... maybe you thought you was making a point .....
But supply of oil has never been the determining factor in fuel prices as we was lead to believe , the refineries are more to blame ....
i was up on dead cow creek rd in Colorado workin with some of those black hills drillers , the cost to bring shale up out of the ground =12.00 per barrel

[Spider]

End it now and put spider on ignore he sees and accepts zero reasoning hes a tuned up opinionated trucker with access to the internet ( you have been warned)

awww my little buddy is still butt hurt ...... It is ok lil trooper , stupid people do have a right to an opinion , no matter how wrong it is .... now yo ucan stop being so butt hurt

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

first it sounds like your(sic) jealous, and second how did it happen?

::)

Or maybe I just don't want my country to resemble Mexico, i.e., a country where ~30 families control all the nation's wealth and the rest of the populace are serfs?



by voting in liberal progressives year after year.

:rofl:

You're kidding, right?

"Liberal progressives" haven't had any power in this country since WAY before you were born.

Who do nothing but pander to the poor and DO NOTHING to fix it..But of course line their pockets..

I realize you will never get it..

but I had to say it after all.

You will never get the fact that trickle-down economics are a fraud - no matter how many times they're discredited in your own lifetime.

You will also never get the fact that if you want to grow the economy and create jobs, then you need to put money in the hands of those people who are actually going to spend it - given that consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. economy.

BTW those same folks pay about 80% of the taxes you want redistributed..

:bs:

More often than not, they pay no taxes at all.

Righties like you deliberately confuse nominal tax rates with effective tax rates, i.e., what corporations and the rich actually pay after exploiting the myriad loopholes available to them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

awww my little buddy is still butt hurt ...... It is ok lil trooper , stupid people do have a right to an opinion , no matter how wrong it is .... now yo ucan stop being so butt hurt

:laugh: :yep:

[TonyR]

Tea Party Not Serious About Entitlement Reform

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/10/18/tea-party-not-serious-about-entitlement-reform

...At this point, anyone who's serious about budget reform needs to ignore the Tea Party. Just pretend it never existed. It can't help you. Its purported concern for budgetary balance was never more than tangentially connected to fiscal reality...

...The Tea Party was a cultural outburst. You're not going to get much help crunching numbers or poring over line items from a group that has essentially sacralized the budget...

[lonestar]

Tea Party Not Serious About Entitlement Reform

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/10/18/tea-party-not-serious-about-entitlement-reform

...At this point, anyone who's serious about budget reform needs to ignore the Tea Party. Just pretend it never existed. It can't help you. Its purported concern for budgetary balance was never more than tangentially connected to fiscal reality...

...The Tea Party was a cultural outburst. You're not going to get much help crunching numbers or poring over line items from a group that has essentially sacralized the budget...


Yes by all means quote a piece from one of the lefty magazines as "mana from heaven".. :rofl::rofl:

[Spider]

Yes by all means quote a piece from one of the lefty magazines as "mana from heaven".. :rofl::rofl:

seriously , when I told TJ that the depth of the waters didnt cause the Deep Horizon disaster , why did you bring up Hurricanes ?

[lonestar]

::)

Or maybe I just don't want my country to resemble Mexico, i.e., a country where ~30 families control all the nation's wealth and the rest of the populace are serfs?



:rofl:

You're kidding, right?

"Liberal progressives" haven't had any power in this country since WAY before you were born.



You will never get the fact that trickle-down economics are a fraud - no matter how many times they're discredited in your own lifetime.

You will also never get the fact that if you want to grow the economy and create jobs, then you need to put money in the hands of those people who are actually going to spend it - given that consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. economy.



:bs:

More often than not, they pay no taxes at all.

Righties like you deliberately confuse nominal tax rates with effective tax rates, i.e., what corporations and the rich actually pay after exploiting the myriad loopholes available to them.

I would have used yellow but is does not show up very well in screens..

I guess your with the IRS and have seen these personal TAX returns.:rofl::rofl::rofl:

other wise your just talking crap. like the rest of the loony left..

why aren't you out walking on wall street?

[lonestar]

seriously , when I told TJ that the depth of the waters didnt cause the Deep Horizon disaster , why did you bring up Hurricanes ?

seriously does it matter?

whenever a drilling platform is talked about by the loony left and environmentalist hurricanes are the big talking point..

the biggest reasons that they should be denied..

then of course any drilling permit is questioned for a myriad of reasons from vegetation and wildlife to saving the world from non-existent global warming.

BTW just how do you work for a living yet find time to spend talking POLITICS on a football forum..

have a good day..

[Spider]

seriously does it matter?

whenever a drilling platform is talked about by the loony left and environmentalist hurricanes are the big talking point..

the biggest reasons that they should be denied..

then of course any drilling permit is questioned for a myriad of reasons from vegetation and wildlife to saving the world from non-existent global warming.

BTW just how do you work for a living yet find time to spend talking POLITICS on a football forum..

have a good day..
Huh ? stay focused ... TJ stated BP was forced to drill in deep water where it is more dangerous then shallow water ,my point is drillin is drilling Last I knew you was talking hurricanes , Hurricanes also happens in Shallow waters , So AGAIN I ask what was your point ?

[Spider]

BTW just how do you work for a living yet find time to spend talking POLITICS on a football forum..

have a good day..

stop deflecting , and stay focused

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess your with the IRS and have seen these personal TAX returns.:rofl::rofl::rofl:

other wise your just talking crap. like the rest of the loony left..


Not my fault that you don't understand the difference between nominal and effective tax rates.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

Most firms pay no income taxes - Congress

Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

[lonestar]

Not my fault that you don't understand the difference between nominal and effective tax rates.

I understand alright and while there are loop holes out there.

That should be your focus and outrage not raising the the rates to feel good.

Frankly I'm all for a flat tax for all income, flat for all, that is no loop holes for the poor..

Everyone pays the same rate.. now that would be a fair..

[lonestar]

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

Most firms pay no income taxes - Congress

Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/

SO figure out how to fix it..

I know when I was in business we paid taxes each year..

I think your pissing and moaning on here should be directed to your Senator and representitive..

it will have more effect that whinning here..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think your pissing and moaning on here should be directed to your Senator and representitive..

it will have more effect that whinning here..

What makes you think I'm not in touch with those reps?

This is a political discussion forum.

If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear.

[lonestar]

This is a political discussion forum.

If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear.

I just said IF you want to accomplish something other than pissing and moaning take it else where..

I find it hilarious that moron piss and moan about politics on a football forum..

as for your commentary "If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear"

be prepared to read my posts also..as other than some morons on the far, left it is the truth..

Please do not get pissed if I do not rise for your baiting, and lies..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just said IF you want to accomplish something other than pissing and moaning take it else where..

I find it hilarious that moron piss and moan about politics on a football forum..

as for your commentary "If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear"

be prepared to read my posts also..as other than some morons on the far, left it is the truth..

Please do not get pissed if I do not rise for your baiting, and lies..

#1. This isn't a football forum. If you bother to read, you'll note that it's called the "War, Religion and Politics" forum. Hence, your whining about having to read political posts is inappropriate.

#2. It's clear that, like most righties, you prefer to file all inconvenient facts and uncomfortable realities under "baiting and lies," or the like.

[lonestar]

This is a political discussion forum.

If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear.

I just said IF you want to accomplish something other than pissing and moaning take it else where..

I find it hilarious that moron piss and moan about politics on a football forum..

as for your commentary "If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear"

be prepared to read my posts also..as other than some morons on the far, left it is the truth..

Please do not get pissed if I do not rise for your baiting, and lies..

[Spider]

I just said IF you want to accomplish something other than pissing and moaning take it else where..

I find it hilarious that moron piss and moan about politics on a football forum..

as for your commentary "If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear"

be prepared to read my posts also..as other than some morons on the far, left it is the truth..

Please do not get pissed if I do not rise for your baiting, and lies..

:rofl: this from a guy who thinks Hurricanes only happen at deep waters ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just said IF you want to accomplish something other than pissing and moaning take it else where..

I find it hilarious that moron piss and moan about politics on a football forum..

as for your commentary "If the truth bothers you that bad, then maybe you should steer clear"

be prepared to read my posts also..as other than some morons on the far, left it is the truth..

Please do not get pissed if I do not rise for your baiting, and lies..

Your next move was easy to anticipate:

When you realize you can't win the debate, then try to silence your opponent.

So typical of the "love it or leave it" right.

I suppose when you're trying to defend an economic philosophy whose chief architects even admit was a failure, such tactics are your only recourse.

[Bronx33]

Your next move was easy to anticipate:

When you realize you can't win the debate, then try to silence your opponent.

So typical of the "love it or leave it" right.

I suppose when you're trying to defend an economic philosophy whose chief architects even admit was a failure, such tactics are your only recourse.


You giving yourself wayyyyyyy to much credit here you cant anticipate a bowel movement let alone a point that you dont agree with you disagree no matter what ( that makes you a limited tool).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You giving yourself wayyyyyyy to much credit here you cant anticipate a bowel movement let alone a point that you dont agree with you disagree no matter what ( that makes you a limited tool).

::)

Yeah, right - your arguments are so consistently thoughtful, incisive, and original no one can keep up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

>>( that makes you a limited tool).<<

You're a simpleton whose grasp on basic literacy is tenuous at best, and whose posts seldom extend beyond one or two poorly-constructed sentences, and you call me "limited?"

That's some funny sh*t right there! :rofl:

[Bronx33]

Short lesson you're not good enough to be a full fledged tool ( you're a limited tool) and hey thanks for proving my point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Short lesson you're not good enough to be a full fledged tool ( you're a limited tool) and hey thanks for proving my point.

And what "point" is that?

That you're nothing but bluster, BS, and ad hominem?

[lonestar]

:rofl: this from a guy who thinks Hurricanes only happen at deep waters ?

Just exactly where did I say that..

talk about a moron..

After being in the Navy and living on the east coast, I've ridden many of them out as well as had them go by while in port not to mention had one go through Disney world several years. ago.. and while in Springfield MO two years ago.. so unless those were only in deep water your so full of MBE its funny.

Please people have said you are a moron and to iggy you, you just might get that..

[Spider]

well your the one that brought up Hurricanes , when we was talking about drilling deep and shallow water .....you really shouldnt be calling anyone a moron :rofl:

[lonestar]

Your next move was easy to anticipate:

When you realize you can't win the debate, then try to silence your opponent.

So typical of the "love it or leave it" right.

I suppose when you're trying to defend an economic philosophy whose chief architects even admit was a failure, such tactics are your only recourse.

So typical of the far left loonies to throw that line out..



I said do something besides piss and moan on a FOOTBALL forum..

if you want to piss and moan fine, but I find it ludicrous to think your going to changes anyones mind.. especially anyone with an IQ over 12.

[lonestar]

well your the one that brought up Hurricanes , when we was talking about drilling deep and shallow water .....you really shouldnt be calling anyone a moron :rofl:

once again I brought up Hurricanes saying they were the rallying cry of the morons that do not want to drill for oil in the ocean, deep water shallow water or any where other than the middle east, you know the NIMBY crowd..

afraid that a storm like a hurricane will foul the waters..

are you capable of inteligent conversation or are every one that has sent me pm's right (as in correct).

Once again fo someone that is supposedly a truck driver I find it funny that no matter what time I post your able to reply within seconds..
Isn't illegal in all 50 states texting while driving..:thumbs:

are you sure your not mommas boy down in the basement.. pretending to be a 'BIG RIG DRIVER"

[Spider]

once again I brought up Hurricanes saying they were the rallying cry of the morons that do not want to drill for oil in the ocean, deep water shallow water or any where other than the middle east, you know the NIMBY crowd..

afraid that a storm like a hurricane will foul the waters..

are you capable of inteligent conversation or are every one that has sent me pm's right (as in correct).

Once again fo someone that is supposedly a truck driver I find it funny that no matter what time I post your able to reply within seconds..
Isn't illegal in all 50 states texting while driving..:thumbs:

are you sure your not mommas boy down in the basement.. pretending to be a 'BIG RIG RIVER"
LOL no you brought it cause you are a moron , or you wouldnt have said they didnt have hurricanes when I pointed out Canada been Drilling at that depth with no problems ....... Hurricanes , and you talk about anyone elses IQ ?

[alkemical]

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2011/10/18/16/enhanced-buzz-22428-1318970991-5.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So typical of the far left loonies to throw that line out..

I said do something besides piss and moan on a FOOTBALL forum..

if you want to piss and moan fine, but I find it ludicrous to think your going to changes anyones mind.. especially anyone with an IQ over 12.

You can always tell right-wingers are out of ammo when all they have left are attempts to silence their opponents.

As for "doing something" - don't pretend you're Miss Cleo and that you have a crystal ball with which you can divine what people you meet on the web do in real life.

And don't presume to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't say on a political discussion forum - you're not a moderator here.