|
On January 11 2012 12:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Does Newt Gingrich know that energy is sold to the highest bidder?
When speaking to the average voter, Republicans, as a rule, talk about, "America's\Our\ Energy." for populist purposes.
It is a worldwide market where it is sold to the highest bidder. It just so happens America is a huge consumer and transportation costs mean a foreign bidder would have to pay a bit more.
Not to mention most of the Republicans would likely not try to get any tax revenue from the oil corporations, or even charge much for rent or sale of the land. Would be more accurate to say under them it will be Exxon Mobile's oil, not America's, because obviously Exxon is a wise market actor and the public collecting money from the use of public land would only encourage the government to spend... or something.
Not that the Democratic party is free of populism, I am an equal opportunity anti-populist.
|
On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties.
that's exactly the point of super pacs
On January 11 2012 12:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Not really. It's what you'd expect, the candidates with more appeal and support garnering more money. Barack Obama raised far more than John McCain in 2008 because he was the candidate with superior appeal. People back who think they will win. Now that Mitt has won NH, are you ready for The Hair vs. The Mouth? What a great choice we're going to have, Mittens Romney or Barackulus Obama. you're arguing chicken and egg at this point
having more money gets you more campaigning which puts you in a more positive light which brings press attention to you which brings more money for you to campaign with
at the end of the day money + politics = the slow death of the american empire
|
Canada11268 Posts
On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs
So more corporatism.
|
On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism.
yes
you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?)
super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling
|
Oh god that guy on CNN is hilarious, sitting in South Carolina in a room full of conservative republicans and the CNN guy asks him if he will support the Republican nominee no matter what. He responds "If Ron Paul doesn't get it, I'm going Obama" hahaha
CNN guy constantly making fun of him now lol
|
I think what a lot of people are failing to realize about the nomination process is the idea that delegates win the nod and not necessarily the votes themselves.
Ron Paul definitely has a shot at winning if he manages to secure Texas and California (the two largest delegate states.) He's currently leading polls in California with over 50% of the vote, and he has a pretty big advantage over Romney in Texas because that's his home state.
If he can continue to secure second or first places in future primaries, then im sure he'll get the support and financing he needs to last until the REC.
|
Canada11268 Posts
On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling
Yeah I kinda figured that was the case.
re Daily Show/ Colbert. I don't know if they show it in Canada, I just know they don't block it on the internet. (Darn regional blocks) But I haven't consistently watched for a year or so until now (election times always makes Stewart better.)
Corporations as separate legal identities with limited liabilities makes sense. Treating Corporations as people... well I don't know very many people that have as much influence and power as the international corporations. Sounds like a republic heading for oligarchy.
|
On January 11 2012 12:36 ryanAnger wrote:
Ron Paul definitely has a shot at winning if he manages to secure Texas and California (the two largest delegate states.) He's currently leading polls in California with over 50% of the vote, and he has a pretty big advantage over Romney in Texas because that's his home state.
I find this hard to believe. Do you have links to recent, unbiased polls to back these claims up?
|
On January 11 2012 12:36 ryanAnger wrote:
I think what a lot of people are failing to realize about the nomination process is the idea that delegates win the nod and not necessarily the votes themselves.
Ron Paul definitely has a shot at winning if he manages to secure Texas and California (the two largest delegate states.) He's currently leading polls in California with over 50% of the vote, and he has a pretty big advantage over Romney in Texas because that's his home state.
If he can continue to secure second or first places in future primaries, then im sure he'll get the support and financing he needs to last until the REC.
Texas seems to be proportional, rather than winner take all. That gives Paul almost no help even if he wins.
|
On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism.
People have the right to petition their government, and they have that right even if they invest in corporate stock or serve as employees of a corporation. The only way to stop that is to strip certain individuals of their rights, and I don't think any decent person would countenance such an idea if they understood what it entailed.
The issue isn't that citizens petition government, it's that government reserves the power to stack the deck in favor of particular corporations at the expense of their peers or, as is too often the case, small start-ups who can't break into a market dominated by rent-seekers and other beneficiaries of regulatory favoritism.
|
On January 11 2012 15:26 Voros wrote:
People have the right to petition their government, and they have that right even if they invest in corporate stock or serve as employees of a corporation. The only way to stop that is to strip certain individuals of their rights, and I don't think any decent person would countenance such an idea if they understood what it entailed.
Actually, Montana did just that a century ago and two weeks ago, in defiance of Citizens United. Mostly because the logical extreme of such an argument led to a certain copper corporation literally buying out Montana's government and controlling it for approximately thirty years.
Or something like that.
|
On January 11 2012 15:26 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. People have the right to petition their government, and they have that right even if they invest in corporate stock or serve as employees of a corporation. The only way to stop that is to strip certain individuals of their rights, and I don't think any decent person would countenance such an idea if they understood what it entailed. The issue isn't that citizens petition government, it's that government reserves the power to stack the deck in favor of particular corporations at the expense of their peers or, as is too often the case, small start-ups who can't break into a market dominated by rent-seekers and other beneficiaries of regulatory favoritism.
There are many measures that could be taken within the confines of the Constitution. Campaign finance reform would be the most obvious answer, and possibly limitations on campaign timings.
On January 11 2012 17:07 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 15:26 Voros wrote:
People have the right to petition their government, and they have that right even if they invest in corporate stock or serve as employees of a corporation. The only way to stop that is to strip certain individuals of their rights, and I don't think any decent person would countenance such an idea if they understood what it entailed. Actually, Montana did just that a century ago and two weeks ago, in defiance of Citizens United. Mostly because the logical extreme of such an argument led to a certain copper corporation literally buying out Montana's government and controlling it for approximately thirty years. Or something like that.
Actually, part of the reason why the Senate is directly elected is due to state legislators being bought out in the early 20th century. Before that, the people elected the House and the state's legislators elected the Senate.
|
On January 11 2012 09:23 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 09:08 yarders wrote:On January 09 2012 11:43 sc4k wrote:Still waiting for someone to answer these points? On January 06 2012 09:15 sc4k wrote:
Libertarianism just feels so jarring, I can't believe it's actually gaining traction. I guess the allure of having to pay less taxes will win almost anyone over. But the whole de-regulation thing just seems so dangerous. It's hard enough to deal with monopolies now in the modern world. How does a libertarian society deal with monopolies? I mean, companies just buying out all the competition aggressively, tying up all possible distribution outlets...all that sort of crap?
Also, I think the general criticism of the FDA seems a bit weird to me. Getting rid of that sort of regulation just seems so reckless as to the health of people in your society. You are happy to stand by and allow the possibility that people will be seriously harmed and damaged by drugs which aren't tested to any standard of care...until it's found that the damage has been done and everyone keeps away from it...I know that food and drugs regulation can't stop everything but it just seems crazy to actually reduce society's ability to protect itself from that...things like the thalidomide tragedy have taught us some serious lessons about regulation and to back off from that seems crazy.
Same goes for...how does a libertarian society effectively administer disease control? For example, a spread amongst livestock of a certain disease...how does it deal with culling animals? Seeing as it's not supposed to have coercive power to cull livestock...does that mean you are happy for BSE burgers to be floating around the country? If someone doesn't respond I've learnt it's usually because you've made a good point. That said I think you've twisted what it means to be a Libertarian. I consider myself a libertarian because I consider individual liberty vital for society. I want to maximise individual liberty and political freedom. My philosophy is this, 'An individual should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not adversely effect another individual' That doesn't mean I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Most governments (and all left wing governments) naturally trend towards greater control and centralisation and it is all our responsibility as individuals to fight against that. The recent SOPA/PIPA laws and internet regulation is a classic example of a government trying to control something it doesn't understand and fears. In the UK we recently fought off a government attempt to introduce ID cards and huge national databases with all our personal information stored within them. You've probably read 1984 I don't need to say any more. I don't believe there should be no government or no taxes but government should be small and taxes not excessive. I am actually a strong supporter or our National Health Service in the UK which offers free health care to everyone. It also doesn't mean I'm against regulation. Certainly some regulation is vital, drinking water standards etc And I'd have no problem culling animals if they posed a threat as long as the individuals were compensated. Monopolies are of course very inefficient and again I would have no problem regulating them. Back on topic For me Ron Paul is the only candidate raising the vital issue of individual freedom although I certainly don't agree with him 100%. I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, SOPA/PIPA and the NDAA laws are extremely worrying developments and people should be extremely concerned. Corporations are far to involved in the political process, corruption is rife and the US is starting to lose everything that made it so great and people wonder why its going down hill. Things need to be shaken up and all the other candidates are very poor from what I have seen. Wouldn't a better goal than fighting regulations in general be fighting harmful and useless regulations ? As for SOPA I think it is not really a government in this case that wants to control things, more like interest groups using government to do their bidding. Also why would you put freedom (extremely vague word btw) as your core principle. I feel from your text like your real core principles are actually ethical ones based on minimization of suffering and increasing prosperity or similar. Why not just use them as core principles as they seem to be so anyway, unconsciously at least. I always wondered why would people use as their core principles something so derivative as freedom instead of things that come directly from our humanity like empathy. If you use freedom as your core values, unless you are a psychopath, you will arrive on logical conclusions of that choice that are contrary to your actual beliefs. For example your support for NHS means that your core principles are not actually freedom, but empathy as I said, since existence of NHS is hard to justify based on freedom alone. So why not just drop the whole freedom thing and build your views on other more natural principles. In the end you will find that what will naturally and logically come from that is much more closer to what you feel is right and just and also that support for freedom (not absolute, but significant) will follow from those premises anyway.
If you don't think SOPA is also about government control you are being naive. Look at Turkey, China and all the other governments who are now taking more and more control, look at the recent G8 summit and government rhetoric. Government elites fear the internet, they have seen what happened with the Arab spring and governments just like humans will always try and control things they fear. Just look at history.
My definition of freedom is not vague. I defined my philosophy above, 'An individual should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not adversely effect another individual'.
Throughout human history humans have always sought to control one another because of their own insecurities. It is only in the most recent history that some humans (though many still don't) have had unparalleled freedoms which never existed before. To overcome that natural tendency to control is something incredible and needs be protected. Already we have had to fight very hard to keep our liberty. We in the UK were not so far away from speaking German today.
I don't believe individual liberty and compassion are mutually exclusive. In fact individual liberty is very much the primary factor in allowing for increased prosperity and the minimisation of suffering. If you start from a position of empathy you become an idealist and risk moving to a communist position.
The entire communist position is idealistic because it fails to understand human nature. Whilst it sounds like a good idea for everyone to be equal in theory, in practice it is a disaster. Whether we like it or not we are all born different and defined by those differences. People will always aspire to be better (and gain security). This makes the only plausible communist state one with extreme central control and this has always proved to be the case throughout history. A situation which always results in no liberty and great suffering.
You contradict yourself. You say if you use empathy as a primary principle then belief in freedom will naturally follow (No see above). Then you say you'd be a psychopath to support freedom and the NHS. Nonsense
There are different types of libertarian. I have already said I am not anarcho-capitalist. I believe some taxes, regulations and
government is necessary, if not vital. For example an impartial police force is vital to maintain the rule of law and protect individuals from each other.
The NHS we have today is made all the stronger because of the individual liberties we enjoy and there is no reason they cannot co-exist if not actually make each other stronger. I also believe those individuals who put a greater strain on the NHS should pay an economic penalty (see philosophy above - they are adversely affect other individuals who have to subsidise their lifestyle). People who smoke, drink alcohol or eat fatty foods should pay an exercise duty.
|
I would like to add that in my previous post when I wrote empathy I should have added fairness to it, i just packed both into one word in my mind, but I meant both as they are closely related.
On January 12 2012 01:15 yarders wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 09:23 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 09:08 yarders wrote:On January 09 2012 11:43 sc4k wrote:Still waiting for someone to answer these points? On January 06 2012 09:15 sc4k wrote:
Libertarianism just feels so jarring, I can't believe it's actually gaining traction. I guess the allure of having to pay less taxes will win almost anyone over. But the whole de-regulation thing just seems so dangerous. It's hard enough to deal with monopolies now in the modern world. How does a libertarian society deal with monopolies? I mean, companies just buying out all the competition aggressively, tying up all possible distribution outlets...all that sort of crap?
Also, I think the general criticism of the FDA seems a bit weird to me. Getting rid of that sort of regulation just seems so reckless as to the health of people in your society. You are happy to stand by and allow the possibility that people will be seriously harmed and damaged by drugs which aren't tested to any standard of care...until it's found that the damage has been done and everyone keeps away from it...I know that food and drugs regulation can't stop everything but it just seems crazy to actually reduce society's ability to protect itself from that...things like the thalidomide tragedy have taught us some serious lessons about regulation and to back off from that seems crazy.
Same goes for...how does a libertarian society effectively administer disease control? For example, a spread amongst livestock of a certain disease...how does it deal with culling animals? Seeing as it's not supposed to have coercive power to cull livestock...does that mean you are happy for BSE burgers to be floating around the country? If someone doesn't respond I've learnt it's usually because you've made a good point. That said I think you've twisted what it means to be a Libertarian. I consider myself a libertarian because I consider individual liberty vital for society. I want to maximise individual liberty and political freedom. My philosophy is this, 'An individual should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not adversely effect another individual' That doesn't mean I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Most governments (and all left wing governments) naturally trend towards greater control and centralisation and it is all our responsibility as individuals to fight against that. The recent SOPA/PIPA laws and internet regulation is a classic example of a government trying to control something it doesn't understand and fears. In the UK we recently fought off a government attempt to introduce ID cards and huge national databases with all our personal information stored within them. You've probably read 1984 I don't need to say any more. I don't believe there should be no government or no taxes but government should be small and taxes not excessive. I am actually a strong supporter or our National Health Service in the UK which offers free health care to everyone. It also doesn't mean I'm against regulation. Certainly some regulation is vital, drinking water standards etc And I'd have no problem culling animals if they posed a threat as long as the individuals were compensated. Monopolies are of course very inefficient and again I would have no problem regulating them. Back on topic For me Ron Paul is the only candidate raising the vital issue of individual freedom although I certainly don't agree with him 100%. I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, SOPA/PIPA and the NDAA laws are extremely worrying developments and people should be extremely concerned. Corporations are far to involved in the political process, corruption is rife and the US is starting to lose everything that made it so great and people wonder why its going down hill. Things need to be shaken up and all the other candidates are very poor from what I have seen. Wouldn't a better goal than fighting regulations in general be fighting harmful and useless regulations ? As for SOPA I think it is not really a government in this case that wants to control things, more like interest groups using government to do their bidding. Also why would you put freedom (extremely vague word btw) as your core principle. I feel from your text like your real core principles are actually ethical ones based on minimization of suffering and increasing prosperity or similar. Why not just use them as core principles as they seem to be so anyway, unconsciously at least. I always wondered why would people use as their core principles something so derivative as freedom instead of things that come directly from our humanity like empathy. If you use freedom as your core values, unless you are a psychopath, you will arrive on logical conclusions of that choice that are contrary to your actual beliefs. For example your support for NHS means that your core principles are not actually freedom, but empathy as I said, since existence of NHS is hard to justify based on freedom alone. So why not just drop the whole freedom thing and build your views on other more natural principles. In the end you will find that what will naturally and logically come from that is much more closer to what you feel is right and just and also that support for freedom (not absolute, but significant) will follow from those premises anyway. If you don't think SOPA is also about government control you are being naive. Look at Turkey, China and all the other governments who are now taking more and more control, look at the recent G8 summit and government rhetoric. Government elites fear the internet, they have seen what happened with the Arab spring and governments just like humans will always try and control things they fear. Just look at history.
It's exactly because I look at those countries that I think it is more interest groups at play here. If it was purely government plan to increase control it would look differently and would be worded differently.
On January 12 2012 01:15 yarders wrote:
My definition of freedom is not vague. I defined my philosophy above, 'An individual should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not adversely effect another individual'.
Throughout human history humans have always sought to control one another because of their own insecurities. It is only in the most recent history that some humans (though many still don't) have had unparalleled freedoms which never existed before. To overcome that natural tendency to control is something incredible and needs be protected. Already we have had to fight very hard to keep our liberty. We in the UK were not so far away from speaking German today.
First that is not what I (and many others) consider as freedom, so there is not even consensus on what freedom is in general. But let's assume I agree with your general idea. It is still vague and nearly noone will agree precisely what it actually means. Where do you put the line between what adversely affects another individual and what does not. There is no easy and clear distinction. Human actions are on a continuous scale between those two extremes and most actions are somewhere in-between. Any line you will draw will be more-or-less arbitrary. Yes, it is possible to draw that line in sensible places, but that's the catch. To even define freedom you need to use other principles, to place that line in sensible place you need to use those other principles to determine what is sensible. That just shows that freedom is not the core principle, just a secondary, derivative one.
On January 12 2012 01:15 yarders wrote:
I don't believe individual liberty and compassion are mutually exclusive. In fact individual liberty is very much the primary factor in allowing for increased prosperity and the minimisation of suffering. If you start from a position of empathy you become an idealist and risk moving to a communist position.
The entire communist position is idealistic because it fails to understand human nature. Whilst it sounds like a good idea for everyone to be equal in theory, in practice it is a disaster. Whether we like it or not we are all born different and defined by those differences. People will always aspire to be better (and gain security). This makes the only plausible communist state one with extreme central control and this has always proved to be the case throughout history. A situation which always results in no liberty and great suffering.
Of course that they are not mutually exclusive. I actually said they can in most cases coexist quite well. I just said that if you use freedom as a core you have no way to logically defend any restriction of exercising that freedom. It is possible to hold a position that freedom cannot be restricted ever, but from your post it is clear that you do not actually think that freedom should be unrestricted as you support some taxes, regulations, NHS. But to logically defend their existence you need to use some other principles than purely freedom, as however you will try, they do not follow from it as a core principle. So as I said before , you actually already use other things as core principles not freedom, that is why I suggested to drop it. If you would be strict anarcho-capitalist I would not suggest so as their views are consistent with freedom as a core principle. Of course that is not to say theirs is ethical or rational position, just consistent with freedom as core principle.
As for empathy leading to communism. It might if you do not use logic and rationality, but it is not necessary. If you use empathy as a core principle then you mostly arrive at some form of utilitarianism as a ethical basis of your world view. I support utilitarianism based on primarily minimization of suffering, but that is just a detail. Utilitarianism does not necessarily lead to communism. Actually utilitarianism and rational thought leads away from communism, so I will not respond to your rant on communism as it has nothing to do with my position.
On January 12 2012 01:15 yarders wrote:
You contradict yourself. You say if you use empathy as a primary principle then belief in freedom will naturally follow (No see above). Then you say you'd be a psychopath to support freedom and the NHS. Nonsense
You misunderstood that part of my post completely if this is what you got from it. But to be clear I will try to make them clearer (hopefully). I said that support for idea of freedom follows from using empathy as a core principle, but not absolute freedom. And since you yourself support some restrictions on freedom(see my point above) this should not be a problem to you in general. My point with the sentence with the caveat about psychopaths was that if you take freedom as a core value and follow it to its logical furthest conclusions you will arrive at conclusions that will conflict with moral principle that any normal human has. Thus they have to either ignore their own moral compass for ideology or abandon freedom as a core principle. I added "except psychopaths" there just to be precise, as psychopaths do not have the moral values of normal people (normal in this case meaning not psychopaths). It was not meant to mean that libertarians are all psychopaths. Just that those of them that are not (likely nearly all of them) are ignoring their own moral compass to follow an ideology or just did not yet make that exercise and did not follow their core beliefs to their logical conclusions.
From that it should be clear what I meant by that statement about NHS. It was just reiterating the same point I made few times already. That to justify your support for NHS you need to restrict freedom somewhat and you cannot justify that using freedom as your core belief.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I wanted to say : "you'd be a psychopath to support freedom and the NHS". I said no such thing. To summarize I said that
a) unless you are an psychopath if you follow freedom as a core principle to its logical conclusion you will find that those conclusion conflict with your own moral compass
b) it is impossible to justify existence of NHS from freedom as a core principle alone as it requires restricting some freedoms and to justify that you need to use some other core principle
On January 12 2012 01:15 yarders wrote:
There are different types of libertarian. I have already said I am not anarcho-capitalist. I believe some taxes, regulations and
government is necessary, if not vital. For example an impartial police force is vital to maintain the rule of law and protect individuals from each other.
The NHS we have today is made all the stronger because of the individual liberties we enjoy and there is no reason they cannot co-exist if not actually make each other stronger. I also believe those individuals who put a greater strain on the NHS should pay an economic penalty (see philosophy above - they are adversely affect other individuals who have to subsidise their lifestyle). People who smoke, drink alcohol or eat fatty foods should pay an exercise duty.
I do not have any big objections to that part that would be related to our discussion.
EDIT: To make my argument shorter (and therefore not entirely correct, but it still makes the point). How do you know freedom is good ? Because it "feels" like a good thing. Ha, so that means there is something else that is actually at play that justifies freedom as a good thing. And that thing is our biologically given moral compass based on fairness and empathy. And those are the core principles.
|
On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling
That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid.
But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
|
Game over for Newt and Perry.
Conservatives are savaging Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for their attacks on Mitt Romney’s years at the private-equity firm Bain Capital.
The attacks from Gingrich and Perry, whose presidential campaigns are on life support, are meant to resonate in South Carolina, the next state on the GOP calendar and a place hit hard by the economic downturn.
Yet in slamming Romney as a corporate raider, the two candidates fighting for their party’s right-wing might have done what Romney never seemed capable of: rallying conservatives around the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign.
The influential Wall Street Journal editorial page denounced the criticism as “crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism” on Tuesday, saying that “desperate” GOP candidates “sound like Michael Moore,” the left-wing filmmaker and provocateur.
Other prominent conservatives similarly bemoaned what they viewed as liberal attack tactics that will be copied by President Obama’s campaign in November.
Conservative talk radio stalwart Rush Limbaugh said Monday of Gingrich’s criticism that “you could have read this in an Occupy Wall Street flier.”
“You could, after all these bites, say, ‘I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message,’” Limbaugh said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/203581-right-wing-rips-gingrich-perry-for-attacks-on-romney-capitalism
|
On January 12 2012 06:15 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid. But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
It doesn't mean that at all lol. Corporate personhood refers to a corporation's capacity to create and enforce contracts as if they were people. It is refered to as a legal fiction. This allows corporations to be sued, protecting the shareholders. And you can obviously tax corporations, it's called a corporate tax (which is 34% currently).
|
On January 12 2012 06:15 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid. But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
Oh my god... How clueless can you get?
Rofl... Companies (at least certain forms) are "juristic persons" in about any state there is... They get taxed, they can get sued, they can sue.. They get certain rights and obligations like people.
Thats where the saying "corporations are people" comes from.
Saying you can't tax corporations is probably the dumbest thing i have read all week...
|
On January 12 2012 06:15 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid. But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
Along with the other people making fun of you for your ignorance, I thought I would add that it's "Jon," not "John."
But no, corporate personhood is a real legal thing. Sorry. The world is not as wonderful as you thought.
|
On January 12 2012 06:15 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid. But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure corporations have pretty much the same legal rights as people in the U.S. And yes, you can tax corporations.
From good ol' wikipedia (I know, not a reputable source sometimes, but I think for this one it's fine):
"Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] "
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
