Shared publicly  - 
 
541
102
Yerch McYerchikins's profile photochristopher barrious's profile photoScot Hayworth's profile photoAnders Nilsson's profile photo
184 comments
 
You're not political often, Wil, but when you are, you're right. 
 
I'm afraid to click the link.. looks a bit dodgy.. youtu.be??
 
Yet the hardest thing to do is remove money from politics because some of the people that benefit most from it are the politicians themselves.
 
too late politicians were already owned..
 
The Supreme Court ruled on it and then refused to hear it again when it came back up in the recent case from Montana. Outside of a Constitutional amendment there's not much that can be done to overturn it at this point.
 
Berine is a good man, a socialist for my heart since I'm a Swede.
 
Money talks. We have almost a de facto monarchy and the Founding Father's must be furious... 
 
So, we should go back to where only Unions and the Bar can own politicians?  Please don't have a Socialist as your hero.
 
The problem with Citizens United isn't that the politicians are in the pockets of the special interests; now the media is in the pockets of these interests because of bigger ad revenue, and the electorate itself might as well be for sale given the sway these political ads have.
 
+Jeremy Collake The Teamsters certainly didn't.  (Get rich by being nice.  Apparently the comment to which I replied has been deleted.)
 
+Jeremy Collake -- Check out "The Gospel of Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie. The rich really need to read that book rather than, say, anything by Ayn Rand.
 
And we all thought the Gilded Age was a thing of the past... If things don't change we'll be at the end of the Progressive Era and starting a new modern Gilded Age. If you look into the history a bit, there are actually quite a few parallels.
 
While we're at it, shall we have a go at the Electoral College System?

It seems that the playing field is slanted very much in the Wealthiest Constituents' favor.  And for some reason that nobody can successfully explain, we keep sending the same people to congress that we threatened to vote out several elections before.    :-/

I couldn't agree more - but I don't see us (we, the people) getting organized into any sort of effective unit anytime soon.
 
Unions have been able to "donate" as much money to the democrats as they want.  Should unions be the only ones with a say as to what laws are place or who gets elected?
 
Its not fair that a corporation should have all of the benefits of citizenship - like speech - but none of the responsibilities or consequences. You can't put a corporation in jail.
 
Yes, they keep 'We the People' divided over the most mundane, insignificant, petty issues... arguing like rabid dogs over 1% of the budget. Ugh.
 
Amen!  Amen!  And Right ON!  Now if only we could find a way to accomplish this...
 
As of March 20, 2012, Clarence Thomas had not asked a question from the bench in 6 years. With dedication like that how can you not trust in the Supreme Court?
 
+Julia Thompson +Ron Ruble +Denver Lobo Thanks!  

The system is self-perpetuating... The arguments for corporations as people are evilly enticing, but the problems it causes. Some people have floated suggestions to tax corporations as individuals since they benefit from the status as a person. Honestly, I'm a bear of little brain and I don't know of the "right" solution, but I am alarmed at the power that corporations have in goverment.
 
If corporations are people, than people are corporations, right? Who wants to buy some stock in me? I'm IPOing over here!
 
I like Sanders, and I can't believe Citizens United could happen in this country. I'm pretty terrified we've lost our democracy in favor of a monopolistic capitalism.
 
The decision was regarding whether or not government could control what people do with their money. The unfortunate consequence of that decision is limitless campaign contributions. It's a classic case of "what does the Constitution say" versus "what would actually make more sense". If there is to be change in this, then the country needs to identify a problem from a broad perspective and propose a constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions. People seem to forget that that is the avenue for change. The Supreme Court is there to compare legislation to the letter of the Constitution. If the Constitution becomes outdated for contemporary issues, then the amendments process is in place to make such time induced changes. 

On a similar note, I do not like the implications of the Citizens United decision, but I agree with its interpretation based on the Constitution. 
 
+Michael Brown Actually, as Citibank put it in internal memos, it is Plutocracy Plutonomy (correction). 
 
Just as a note of interest, the legal recognition of corporations as "persons" goes back quite a long time (a couple of hundred years at least; probably earlier than that in the U.S. and Britain). Initially, the idea was in part to provide a vehicle for people who had been wronged by corporations to sue them in court.
 
I miss having Sanders as one of my elected officials.  Keep going, Bernie! 
 
+Reith Walls While you are right, the Supreme Court also has an obligation not to do dumb f*ck things. I mean, kinda hard to create new legislation when they re-interpret current legislation so that the legislators are in the pockets of special interest groups more than ever ... So now we need legislators, but they are all bought and paid for. Perfect storm.
 
I won't believe that Corporations are people until the state of Texas executes one.
 
Corporations spend millions on campaign ads saying how unemployment is killing the economy. Here's an idea. HIRE PEOPLE INSTEAD.
 
+Reith Walls I disagree that the CU decision is constitutional, but I do hope to see an amendment. I doubt it could happen any time in the near future considering the current political narrative and the number of private-company-owned but "elected" officials. Honestly, I don't know that we're on any path but eventual and total political collapse.
 
+Jeremy Collake Any source for that memo? I can't decide if that's totally believable or totally unbelievable.
 
+Gerald Walls: Because Unions represent YOU.  Why don't you want anybody in your corner when it comes to labor contracts and labor laws?
 
+Reith Walls I do agree that it is probably the right decision under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after all, gives a very broad prohibition against the regulation of speech. Corporations are really groups of people, and if you are going to disfavor that grouping of people, then what about other groups? Unions, non-profits, little old lady book clubs? What if you, I, Wil, and Michael wanted to pool our money to pay for an advocacy ad? Do we lose protection because instead of one individual we are four? What if we're 20? Or 200? I think the influx of special interest monies into campaigns is a problem; under the First Amendment I think you are hard-pressed to stop people or groups of people from running advocacy ads to disseminate their political viewpoint to the public. And that's probably the way it should be. Yes, there are certain ills associated with this, because conglomerations of people have a greater voice than individuals. But I'm not convinced that the alternative, relying on the government to decide what people or groups of people are allowed to engage in political speech, is much better. In fact, I'm sure it is much worse. It is easy to point to a case like corporations and say "oh, we hate them so they shouldn't get a voice like this." But our legal system lives on a system of precedents, and one thing that is clear when you look at U.S. case law over time is that once you open the door, not only does it rarely close again but it opens wider and wider.
 
+Gerald Walls: Also, you might want to take a look around.  McCarthy is dead.  You can think for yourself now.
 
Citizens united is a disaster that removes further power from the electorate and puts it in the hands of fewer.

Those that say, "HARUMPH! What we should go back to Unions and the Bar being the only people that can buy politicians" Show that you understand the problem by satirizing it.

Consider for a second a situation where there was a group of people that weren't beholden to Unions or the Bar, ie the Republican Party circa 1970. Now tell me we are better off with GE, Walmart and every other Fortune 500 corporation owning those guys instead of us?

Do you really think this is any well helping the people? No.

This is like saying because that guy over there gets to bribe people we should let our politicians be bribed too! You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case making that argument.

END RANT
 
It's easy enough people... stop voting for the two-party system and pick another candidate.    Last time I checked, you can vote.  Walmart can not.
 
+Shaun Burks Yes. But it is easier to pretend that one of the two major parties really has your best interests at heart. Then you can pull the lever for them, while feeling morally superior over the guy who voted for the other party. All without having to think much :)
 
+Wil Wheaton I applaud you for having the courage to post about such an issue, no matter what political side of the spectrum you are on. As I said, both McCain (right) and Obama (left) hate this Supreme Court ruling. McCain said a couple weeks ago on Meet the Press that it will inevitably lead to scandalous behavior and then they'll be more reform. Obama, likewise, bashed it in his first address to congress after the decision. These are two men who have been fighting to keep money out of politics, whether you agree with their other policies or not. This is a good example of how the Right AND Left can come together on some issues, get past the petty crap that divides us, and make a better country.
 
Does anyone else not find it ironic that Bernie is personally one of those "wealthiest" people in America?
 
+Mike Moore , the guy who said Wil's politics "suck" banned? me from viewing his content. I guess his politics aren't up for scrutiny 
 
+R. Scott Kimsey: Thank God that Vermont broke the mold on that one.  Granted, Vermont doesn't recognize Bernie's party, so he had to run as a Nonpartisan...
 
People can use their powers for good or evil! Senator Bernie Sanders can be as wealthy and/or successful as his talents and ability take him - I don't find it ironic; so far I am impressed with his understanding and concern for all Americans - and wish more members of Congress understood that they were supposed to be working for our Country and all Americans, not just the privileged few and/or those who line their pockets or provide them lobbying opportunities after they retire or resign.
 
Please keep spreading this kind of info Wil.  You have the peoples ear, and the people need to know this is happening.
 
There is no political will to change. This would be the equivalent of biting the hand that feeds you. The lobbiests rule, and they are owned by the corporations and wealthy backers. Unless there is large scale political reform, no progress will be made.
 
I tried that for a few elections Jeremy, but like most, I ended up going with the lesser of two evils theory.
 
Well, there's your problem +Jeremy Collake   If everyone who expressed that sentiment actually went out and voted a different party, we probably already have the critical mass to make it happen.

I'm not saying a 3rd party magically solves all our problems, but it does send a pretty powerful message to the Washington establishment that we the people are finally fed up enough to put our money vote where our mouth is.

Until then, I have not a lot of sympathy for the American populace at large.    Do something or don't.  Just quit bitching about it .    (Sound advice for just about anything.)
 
+Paul Johnson and one of the few people in the Senate that seems to genuinely 'get it.'  
 
+Lawrence Lessig wrote a fascinating and depressing book on the effect of campaign finance on our government: Republic Lost. He makes clear the subtle distinction that this money is buying our politicians' attention, not their votes. He proposed a few radical solutions (because the more typical solutions have failed) and started the #rootstrikers movement (http://rootstrikers.org) to get people organized around this issue.
 
+Shaun Burks: Well, being the only person left of center in either chamber of congress, that's not terribly surprising.
 
Problem is people have been taught to believe that they must vote for the "lessor of two evils" because if they vote outside the 2 parties they are "throwing their vote away".  If folks just did a little research on this thing called the internet on the various candidates they could actually vote for a real change...someone who's values more closely mirror their own and we may actually get a change in place.  But as long as people stubbornly cling to having to vote either dem or rep there will never be true change,  just more of the same.  In doing that people truly are throwing their votes away!
 
Mike, actually, there's good reason to believe that the "first past the gate" system we have actually puts people into the "vote for the lesser evil" mindset.  It's not about the quality of the candidates so much as avoiding what people think is the worst part of a particular candidate.  Here's a video that explains this particular issue:

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
 
Yes, by all means, let's throw Americans into jail cells for making movies critical of politicians. 
 
+Paul Johnson Since I don't desire the effects of Socialism as an economic or political system then I'm a McCarthyite that can't think for myself?  Why not just go for a Godwin and call me a Nazi?

And in a later comment you say that Sanders is "the only person left of center in either chamber of congress".  I have no response for such a nonsensical comment.
 
+Jeremy Collake I see where the Citibank memo referred to Plutonomy but not Plutocracy. Huge difference between the two.
 
+Wil Wheaton Don't let anyone shout you down for expressing a political opinion at the same time as being an entertainer! And particularly don't let them do so simply by trying to use "Socialist!" as a slur!
 
+Jay Blanc I do not believe that someone who believes that socialism is a viable economic or political philosophy should be anyone's role model.  No slur other than that was intended.  I said nothing about Wil's right to express his opinion.  He has the same right to do so as everyone else.  His opinion is conferred no added weight nor penalty due to his celebrity status.  He just has an added platform.
 
We live in a time where it takes courage to speak truth and common sense.  I applaud you Wil!
 
+Gerald Walls I don't really think not allowing businesses to be able to have financial leverage over politicians is particularly socialist! But then, compared to America, even the torys look like socialists. Can't blame you though, it took us thousands of years to work out that actually, looking out for the poor makes life better for everyone, perhaps the US will catch up in the year 3000 or so.
 
+Gerald Walls that would be nice to have a definition for socialism, because it seems that americans have lost its track since the McCarthyism and its spawns.
 
+Nicolas Dufour It's quite simple. You see, because Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a "Socialist" it is fair game for +Gerald Walls to identify him as evil without even having to make an argument about the points he raises. And by extention mock +Wil Wheaton for having a "Socialist Role Model". That's how political discourse works, you make the other guy look evil, stupid or misguided.

Of course, I prefer to allow people to make themselves look misguided, stupid or evil.
 
+William Jones BTW, I applaud the UK's wise decision to avoid the Euro.  Your neighbors seem to be overwhelmed by their excess spending.  "Looking out for the poor" is best done by helping them become not poor, not by making being poor comfortable.
 
the problem is not the influx of corporate money. the problem is a passive, uninformed electorate who allow their vote to be purchased by 30 second ads on tv and the internet. people don't go searching for answers. they go searching for confirmation of what they've already decided is the truth. ads purchased with CU money is only going to confirm what most people already hold as their own truth.
 
+Jay Blanc You are quite skilled at twisting words.  I'm just an engineer.

And I never mocked +Wil Wheaton .  Those are your words.
 
+Jay Blanc Yes, I mean I live in USA for now over 7 years and I still don't understand why people looks scared to death if I say "socialism". Anyway, those are just labels to reduce a whole current of thought into one single word.
 
The problem isn't any of that.  That problem is that normal people are having this conversation on google+ and facebook and not doing anything else about it.  I have two problems.  I don't know what I personally can do to solve this problem and I don't know how to get anyone else to do it as well.  If you can give me answers to those to questions then I am ready to go.
 
+Gerald Walls  I don't really think, by the common definition in the UK that socialism is in any way opposed to the gain of personal wealth by hard work.

But what has become apparent over the last 30 or so years is that give business a free reign and they will exploit the poor in ways that frankly would be described by a religious person as evil. 

Why the poor? Because the worst educated and those lacking the resources to fight injustice can't do anything about it.

For example. Wholesome food is affordable, but it takes effort to prepare. The food industry loads cheap food with appalling ingredients (What sort of nonsense do they do to lamb legs that allow it to be kept for 6 months, unrefrigerated!!!). These ingredients are often both harmful to health and addictive. But they make convenient food affordable. Here's the kicker. They manipulate the marketing, hiding the bad stuff they've put in (Low fat, low sugar, natural, organic, colouring the packaging green and putting pictures of fields on it - most people assume this means the product is somehow healthy). The poorest in society buy this crap, usually because they are working so goddamned hard at a minimum wage job they are too tired to do anything else and get ill from it.

Then, when government dares to tell them that they have to be honest on the packaging, uproar! But if we tell people whats in our food, they won't buy it, they scream.

Now imagine if the food industry could threaten to pull funding if the government doesn't do what they want it to do. What hope is there for any of us then?
 
Bernie Sanders is the only officially declared socialist in Congress, and thinks Obama veers too far to the right. And no, he isn't joking, there’s no such thing as socialist humor.  True, millions are unhappy with Obama, but not because he’s not bankrupting them fast enough as ol’ Bernie believes. No matter, as a famous Chicagoland thug once said, “Never waste a good crisis.”
 
So you go, Bernie, you crazy bastard. Make him turn left so much he spins like a top and drills himself another hole to dig out of.

That drooling, babbling, fool of a spokesman for Adult diapers is in no way, shape, or form, understanding of what it means to be an American. Socialism is anti-American by design, and that needs to be explained to the American people. Those who promote it and push America toward socialism need to be purged from power. It does not matter if it’s under the title of liberalism, socialism, or progressivism. It will kill our Republic.
 
But I want Sanders to keep talking about the Citizens United decision, because it will really show what we are up against. That is, people who believe socialism/marxism/communism hasn't worked because people as smart as them have never been at the wheel. The right people just haven't done it yet, and shitbags like Sanders have to call their doctors because their penises have remained hard even after four hours at the thought of trying again.
 
+Nicolas Dufour For most people in the US "socialism" is a loaded term associated with Marxism, Communism, and State control (via ownership and/or severe regulation) of businesses and the economy.  (West Germany was Capitalist while East Germany was Socialist/Communist.  In reality it wasn't that simple and European Capitalism has a lot of socialism built into it, but that's how people see it.)  It's uncommon for someone to embrace and self-identify with the term "Socialist" as perceived here.
 
In US politics, The only thing "Socialist" means is "Bad".  See also "Nazi", "Hitler", "Communist", etc.   Decades of cold war propaganda have stripped the term of any meaning other than "the enemy."  I doubt this will change until the generations that grew up learning to take cover from the scary soviets under their desk have all died off.
 
+James Barrow Please please please do combat "Socialism" the same way the GOP combated "Same Sex Marriage" and brought up the most important issue of the presidency, a birth certificate. The "Culture War" is working out so well for you guys, I'm sure there won't be generational demographic consequences for what you do now...
 
+Jay Blanc What does "Same Sex Marriage" or birth certificates have to do with any of this?  Or are you just trolling?
 
+Gerald Walls +Dan Merillat  I can't believe the cold war still has this effect on you guys! I mean in a decade or two, the communist state of China will be the biggest economy in the world, this misguided belief that it doesn't work can't be clung to for much longer (I am not in any way endorsing it, I love the freedom living in the UK affords me, just pointing out that it is set to be the dominant system in the world)

But the real thing here is that it is not correct to associate socialist values with communist values. And to try to justify the assertion that they are somehow the same "because most people in America believe that" is really just showing your nations extreme ignorance - I know it's not your fault, the neo-conservatives launched one hell of a propaganda campaign on you guys. The UK isn't socialist in particular, but many European countries, close allies of yourselves are! Do you really believe the French are a bunch of red flag waving communists?
 
+Gerald Walls Just urging you to keep up the culture war. Because I see no better way for you to ensure that Socialism becomes an accepted norm in the US than by the GOP defining everything they consider 'bad' as socialist, when a huge deal of it turns out to be stuff that people really appreciate.
 
Is it just me, or is he a ribbon tie and a goatee away from selling chicken?
 
+William Jones "Communist" china hasn't existed since Mao died.  Even at the peak of the USSR, it could be better termed "State Capitalism" than communism/socialism.  One big international corporation - an oldschool company town with nukes.
 
socialism means "bad" because it infringes on people's rights. 
i live in a country with socialised medicine, which is nice, but if i ever want surgery or anything i can only get it from the government. 
and worse, if a doctor wants to practise here, he can only accept payment from my government's insurance plan. doctors don't have the right to set their own rates or pay (unions only make this worse)
 
I'll start a company so it can vote against Citizens United... ... ...
 
+William Jones So how'd that mis-characterized socialism work out for you guys?  Or Greece, or Turkey, or Spain, or Portugal, or Ireland, or Italy?

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promises prosperity, equality, and security, it delivers poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was only ever achieved in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
 
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
 
+Tim Peterson But on the plus side, that surgeons remit is to do the best job he can with the resources he has, as opposed to a remit of deliver the company the biggest profit. I would feel better knowing that any surgeon operating on me has my health as his primary concern.

+Dan Merillat I lived in China for two years, 2004 & 2005. It is about as communist as can be.

+James Barrow Yeah, you'll run into problems with that argument, because all the European problems are in capitalist states and come from the banks being allowed the freedom to do what they want with no government control.

I am interested to hear about these tyrannical socialist states though, which ones are tyrannical? The ones which offer free healthcare to all? I know that when I lost my legs in Iraq, I was unemployable to the private sector - two equal candidates, one with legs, one with out - who do you choose? My private healthcare scheme told me that they wouldn't cover me because - you'll love this - The amputation was administered by an army doctor, treatment to which they were not in control. (It saved my life and happened minutes after the explosive got me) Therefore it had invalidated my insurance. Thanks for that capatalism.

So if I lived in a country without an NHS or a public sector, I would be unemployable and unable to pay for the rehabilitation which has seen me able to represent my country in the para-olympics (Look out for me :). I assume I would be a homeless beggar.

But early success followed by a collapse? Countries in Europe have  been socialist for longer than America has existed. Successful, wealthy 1st world countries with enviable quality of life. Hmmm, I think you need to research your argument a bit more, maybe try looking in some European books, rather than the nationalistic propaganda and ignorance information floating about the US. Google translate is really rather good these days if you are unable to speak more than your native language.
 
+Jay Blanc Is that Blue Cross of California? If so, I need to file a complaint with CIRA. Only Canadians are allowed to have a CA domain.
 
+William Jones Let's take this slowly so I can determine how in-touch with reality you are.

You do agree that Greece is a socialist state, right?

To quote Margaret Thatcher, Greece ran out of other people’s money, which is exactly what has happened with under the stewardship of the socialists lead by the Papandreou family. That is, they spent all the capital they could steal from their fellow Greeks, and when that ran out they started borrowing, and that has run out as well.
 
Now they are faced with chaos because the unions are the beneficiaries of the socialists’ policies. They are overpaid, underworked, and have their nests feathered by their fellow Greeks when they retire. They are way over the tipping point whereby you have a powerful voting bloc voting benefits for themselves. And they are flexing their muscle, literally.
 
It is almost following the script that Friedrich von Hayek wrote in The Road To Serfdom 67 years ago. The next step for the cradle of democracy will be martial law. At some point elections will be “temporarily” suspended in order to “stabilize the economy.”
 
There is no real solution for Greece. They are bankrupt and their economic foundation is rotten. They have bred a society that wants generous benefits on the one hand, and on the other, cynical producers who don’t want to pay taxes. They are similar to Eastern Bloc countries post-Soviet collapse. My guess is that they need a similar revolution to shake off the socialists and forge a new government based on free market principles. Perhaps they could look to Estonia, Lithuania, or the Czech Republic as an example.
 
The policies demanded by the Troika to bail them out won’t work. They need a complete reformation of their economy. Anything else will just delay the inevitable. The eurozone would be better off by jettisoning Greece and letting them fail. The money spent to save them will be wasted. One can only hope that they will re-emerge without their social burdens and with a free market economy.
 
+Gerald Walls The Democrats and the Republicans are both conservative. More conservative than Reagan was, even.
 
I wonder if anyone would object to requiring any donors making an over 10k contribution to a political party to make an equal contribution to social security, the school system for equipment and supplies, or hospitals so they can treat the uninsured?
 
+James Barrow  You agree that Stockton City is in a Capitalist state yes?

Well, clearly then the bankruptcy of Stockton City proves that the American Capitalist System isn't working!
 
+Paul Johnson Do you really think that CIRA has the resources to take on a healthcare company

+James Barrow I'm eager to hear your theory on how Greece's problems are not as a result of excessive borrowing and uncontrolled lending due to their shift to a consumer society (a capitalist ideal) over the last decade. Greece's socialist party is the third largest party in Greece right now and it does have a short history of socialist policies, but like most of Europe has not seen more than three terms of a continuous socialist government. Socialist implementations have been discarded if they did not work and state controls have been adjusted by various governments. It is difficult to say definitively that Greece is socialist, but it is one of the more socialist states in Europe.

Oh, when you reply, please do bear in mind that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Nothing in socialism contradicts capitalist ideals, but it's remit would be to stop capitalism from profiting from dishonesty.
 
+Paul Johnson +William Jones I am utterly bemused by your inability to click on a link and discover that it is Pacific Blue Cross Private Health Insurance of BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.
 
I'm paraphrasing but a wise man once said, "Just love each other. Then everything just works"
 
+Jay Blanc Unions?  Actually this is an example of why public sector unions are bad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/04/stockton-bankruptcy_n_1648634.html

SAN FRANCISCO, July 4 (Reuters) - The man in charge of the biggest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy is clear about the root of the crisis.

It was a decision that gave firefighters full healthcare in retirement starting on Jan. 1, 1996, s aid Bob Deis, the city manager of Stockton, California.

At the time, the move seemed cheaper than giving pay raises s ought by unions, officials involved in the decision said. When other Stockton employees demanded the same healthcare deal in following years, the city agreed.
 
+TC Johnson Not saying I disagree, in fact I've added most of the people I am debating with here to my circles but wise men have also said that lively debate leads to greater education. I hope no-one thinks I am being anything other than a friendly debating point - if we were in the pub, I'd buy you all a drink!
 
+James Barrow; that's a very selective description of Greece's problems, and I'm sure you know it.  They've also made tax-dodging into their national sport which they are dominating the rest of the world in.  But more than anything their underlining problem is the same as it is in all the Euro countries; it's a monetary union without a fiscal union which works absolutely fine as long as no one cheats, cooks their books, makes unrealistic financial expectations, makes realistic financial expectations and then is hit by the great recession, spends too much (as you rightly mentioned), doesn't raise enough revenue, etc.

In other words, it's a massive clusterf#&%.  The union either has to breakup, or become much more fiscal unified.  Right now they seem to be moving towards the latter right now.
 
And I don't think I need to point out the failings of the Austrian School of Economics when it comes to the modern economic state of affairs.  Or at least I don't imagine I need to, as you seem fairly bright.
 
+Renny Y. Any system: be it political, economical etc developed in the period of the collapse of the roman empire (of the holy roman variety) is going to be fundamentally flawed (Re. Austrian school of economics) I think that we can all agree on that at least.
 
+Renny Y. Your point about a monetary union without a fiscal union is dead on.  Our fiscal union is why you can have a country the size of the US where different regions are almost like different countries with different costs of living, different productivity, different wages, etc. can work.  If we were trying to work under the Articles of Confederation with a loose collection of supreme States under a weak Federal government we'd have the same problem as Europe.
 
Europe will never agree to a fiscal union, remember we are dealing with countries some of which are still Monarchies and asking them to give up control of their purse strings. Imagine if your parents controlled how your household and the households of all your siblings earnt and spent money. Sure it may actually turn out better, but wow, would you resent it.

Europe has been to war for less more times than it is possible to count!
 
+Renny Y. It's almost quittin' time and you want to debate the Austrian School of Economics?  Yeesh. And sigh.

Most economists coach from a Keynesian playbook.  Economists such as Paul Krugman [shudder] will dutifully say on command that when economies slow, governments should prop them up and boost demand by increasing public spending.

There's absolutely no empirical evidence that Keynesian economics actually works, and it sounds a lot like Einstein's definition of "insanity" when people like Krugman - after an initial bout of spending fails to produce a ROI - that governments should spend more.  But I digress...
 
The most used example is Roosevelt's spending boom in the Great Depression. But the evidence now suggests that it was war-time production that dragged the American economy out of depression, not morally enlightened fiscal policy.  It didn't work for Roosevelt and it didn't work for Hoover either.
 
There no evidence to suggest the big deficit spending really is better than doing nothing. But time after time, the interventionist mantra gets trotted out like the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant to incinerate anyone who doubts its gospel truth. Yet it’s just theories with very little basis in fact.
  
The Austrian School of Economics got one thing very right:  Economics is the study of human action. And human action is sometimes rational, sometimes irrational, sometimes predictable, but ultimately a very difficult to model and predict with charts.
 
They also accurately predicted the current economic crisis by correctly identifying the influence of credit on human action. Altering the price of money alters incentives and changes individual calculations across the breadth and depth of an economy.
 
The Austrians pointed out that government-controlled interest rates are the real cause of the business cycle inasmuch as they lead to credit booms and inevitable busts. When the price of money is rigged, the market isn’t free. Only if you understand the “root cause” of the business cycle can you learn how to prevent bubbles from blowing up and popping later.
 
+Gerald Walls; That is an impressive one-sided reading of that article.  Your ideological school must be very proud.

I will quote the headline; "Stockton Bankruptcy The Result Of 15-Year Spending Binge".  So obviously it's not just the unions; there is also the consideration of a bajillion and one homes going into bankruptcy and the economy drying up like the Sahara followed the the cities revenues.

The unions are a problem, but the problem is quite obviously more about their pension plans and healthcare benefits than anything else.  How is this their fault?  These people came into their jobs and were PROMISED THESE BENEFITS BY CONTRACTUAL LAW, which the last time I checked was a big deal in America.  This is not a ponzi scheme, unless you want to totally distort the meaning of the term 'ponzi scheme', but it is an idiotic and almost criminal act of irresponsibility on the City's part.  When the city was booming, the unions wanted pay raises.  The city didn't want to do this, so the mayors effectively made 'pretend money' by promising massive benefits; more than the city could have paid the workers at the time even when it was in boom.  At best this was naive; at worst idiotically shortsighted.

So we're left with this problem; these people who worked hard for all their lives actually want the benefits that they were promised.  Can you imagine the balls?  How dare they!  
Now as a younger person, I have much less sympathy than these retirees than most.  But it is US law that empowers them, not "the unions" or whatever.  The unions haven't been able to prevent tons and tons of their currently-working members from getting laid off and their pay drastically slashed; and they should compromise, IMO.  But the unions can't force their members to break their contracts.  
 
+Michael Brown we are more in a democracy more then ever before but that isn't Constitutional,  otherwise we wouldn't need representatives.  We are supposed to have freedom hence we get a 'free market'.  If you want to call that capitalism which it is in part.  The alternative is communism and that has never worked.

For the rest of you, unions can give unlimited amounts of money and yet I don't see you yelling about that.  Why should a union have more voice over me?  They don't stand for what I do, unions stand against my freedom.  If they had it their way I would be force to join a union and pay the their 'protection money' (union dues).  I have a first amendment right to 'peacefully assemble' and therefor I have the right not to assemble also but unions would force me to assemble unto them.  I luckily don't live in a state that right now forces you to join a union.  Where is the damn freedom in that?  Otherwise shut up about the corporations you are either against it all or for it.
 
There are no collective rights, only individual rights. Corporations are businesses that have made a deal with the devil (the state) in exchange for limited liability. They give up a certain measure of control in exchange for this and that's fair. An un-incorporated business, on the other hand, should have no restrictions placed on it, that aren't imposed on individuals, since the owners are fully (and directly) accountable.
 
+Renny Y. Bankruptcy laws exist to, in part, break contracts that are so bad that they destroy the bankrupt entity.  Yes, the retired employees of the city are getting screwed, like any creditor in a bankruptcy filing gets screwed.  It really, really sucks and I do feel sorry for them.  But, who should pay?  The same thing happens when a company files bankruptcy too (unless you're the UAW and the President pushes the courts to violate bankruptcy law in terms of creditor priority), but additionally the owners are wiped out.

It's really easy to see in retrospect what a horrible decision it is to promise the pensions and healthcare that is common in the public sector.  It is just not possible to honor them.  At the time it probably seemed sound (like kicking the FICA can down the road every few years).  In the private sector this mistake would kill the company and another would end up serving that market.  Business that make bad mistakes fail.  Governments that make bad mistakes have changes in power and then wholesale screaming of "unfair!" when the problems are fixed (via bankruptcy or violently-controversial "reform" laws).

One problem with public-sector unions is that often they're on both side of the bargaining table (via supportive politicians spending other people's money) and the discussions are about how can we give you what you want.  How hard are you going to negotiate with those who spent money supporting your campaign?  (If people can be in the pocket of corporations then they can be in pocket of unions too.)  In the private sector you actually have an adversarial relationship.

Illinois is in terrible shape due to these issues.  There are other factors, of course, but Indiana is in far better shape due in a large part to the Wisconsin-ification of their public sector unions years ago.
 
So the rich man said to the poor man who was hard of hearing, "It's a Free Market!", to which the poor man was elated.  Unfortunately the poor man thought he heard, "It is a flea market!", an apparent hot spot for the poor on the weekends.
 
There is so much misinformation out there. And, yes, socialism has become nothing more than a synonym for 'bad'. People don't realize, for instance, that ever since the Great Depression, we've had a mixed socialist/capitalist economy in the USA. What do you think Social Security is? Medicare? These are 'socialist' type programs. The one thing that is certain, proven over and over again, is that pure capitalism - unrestrained and unregulated without sensible laws to prevent abuse - always leads to failure as those at the top get greedier and greedier and more and more amoral. Eventually balance gets restored, as it always does with capitalism, and a great crash ensues and the working average Joe is the one who really suffers. NOW, the same is true of pure communism, humans simply aren't as smart as the invisible hand of the market. THUS, the best is a mix between the two, and it is what America has had for the last century... well, at least up until the last couple decades where the conservatives pushed against any and all regulation and government interference, which is akin to criminals pushing against common sense laws.
 
Death of Democracy, thy name is Derivative...
 
To state that a society must either be capitalist or communist is a false dilemma aka 'either-or' fallacy . The alternative to capitalism does not have to be communism. Mixed capitalist/ socialist economies have been out performing the US in domestic happiness, income mobility, health care, and even technology (particularly 'green') for some time now.

The free market is intrinsically chaotic, and like all chaotic systems (think Mad Max) it invariably leads to tyranny. As those that succeed early succeed often,and at the expense of the late arrivals. Socialist checks that help limit private power are not necessarily to be feared. 

Still it would be unfair to ignore the fact that pure socialism is as likely to lead to despotism as pure capitalism. As always happiness lies in moderation...
 
Anyone ever think we should all chip in and buy some of the government back?
 
+William Jones  Sorry, I wasn't referring to this group in particular, but the world or at least our individual nations.
 
People have been buying our Government since day one. Or two. There is nothing new here. NEW would be a completely honest politician.
 
+Shawn Wheeler you need to reread the communist manifesto again with that statement.  For capitalism to work you need to have private property and marx says it must be abolished, other wise you "can subjugate the labor of others".

Chaotic is any extreme and we had laws, therefor taking or minimizing the extremes.  Tyranny is the other extreme and the Constitution was made to balance the two but we are barely using it we are in the communist manifesto more then anything, read it there are ten things listed we are doing part or whole of each of them.

As for those mixed countries, their time is coming to and end some time soon.  Germany is bailing out the other loser socialist countries that will end one way or another.  Those socialist countries also pay heavy taxes and are regulated to to hell.  They have huge immigration issues that will catch up to them some time.
 
+Jeremy Collake you need to stop listening to msnbc.  I am a Conservative, I have never nor have I heard any similar to thinking as I say we don't want any regulation.  The liberals are the ones that say that.

Your statement also doesn't make any sense "pure capitalism - unrestrained and unregulated with sensible laws to prevent abuse - always leads to failure as those at the top".  With sensible laws are what is needed and yes with out any proper regulation it would be bad but only the liberals have called for that.

Medicare, medicaid and social security are failing,  They are a pyramid scheme.  They are hoping to have more to pay out to the few but those numbers keep getting bigger.  Now the liberals are trying to make a new slave class, the mexicans.  Import the Mexicans here to pay into it but what will happen when they figure it out?  They are stupid!

The point of the free market is that everyone does their own little thing.  If no one gains power over others then they can only effect a little piece and their influence will be tiny.  With the violations of the Constitution as has been done and the institution of the communism it has unbalanced everything and now we have anarchy and tyranny!
 
Thats what happens when you elect a douchebag narcissist with no CLUE how to do anything. He's in over his head...and what does he do? Blame Republicans. What an F-tard. All he does now is GOLF, and he isnt any good at it. He's an immature BRAT president, worthy of nothing but a kick in the ass...but he thinks its US that need the kick. He's not even SMART enough to take Clinton's advice; Clinton KNEW he didnt know how to run a country, so he appointed people that KNEW how to get things done HIS way. Who did obama appoint? People he owed favors to, his friends, his hacks. Anyone who still believes this a-hole, GTFO my G+, and go hit your head against a wall. Even Bush had class enough to stop golfing when theres a goddamned war on. obama is a douche, cares nothing about anyone but himself. umad, G+ers? TFB.
 
Like I said to Haywood, You're a nut job, and you need to stop believing everything you see on Fox.
 
+Adam Heywood Way too much Fox New diatribe mixed into your statements.  It's always best we think for ourselves and go out seeking answers (from multiple sources) when we have even the slightest question.  One source feeding us only pollutes the mind.
 
I watch all news outlets (including Fox) and believe the ones that have not been caught in blatant, provable lies and deceit. No diatribe, just observation.
 
Amen "Jeremy Collake".

Have any of you believers that Obama hasn't done anything ever heard of a filibuster? You might want to google it, and then google how many there have been prior to, and since Obama took office. Filibusters are almost double what they've been any time in history solely from Republicans striking down Obama legislation that had already passed the Senate and the house. Pretty hard to filibuster something that doesn't exist.
 
+Adam Heywood I meant without sensible laws to prevent abuse.. sorry for my typo, though it should have been obvious in context .. I'm going to leave it there, as the rest of what you say is total misinformation. Deregulation is a PILLAR of the conservative platform. Regulation is a pillar of the liberal platform. You somehow got this totally backwards. The most basic fact checking will verify that. Myself, I am a pragmatist. I appreciate personal responsibility, while at the same time believing in giving more than I take. I am not an ideologue, don't watch MSNBC or Fox News, and actually prefer PBS. I believe in caring for one another, and putting people above profits.
 
+Ken Tobey I stand corrected on that, thanks. It was an off the cuff comment. At least I'm not as far off on basic facts as some people here, lol. (not referring to you, haven't even read what else you wrote, but appreciate the correction to my vocabulary.. you are right it is an important distinction).
 
Made my last edits, gosh I made some typos .. I seem to do that when commenting on political stuff, as it gets my blood boiling to hear total and complete misinformation. I mean, not accidental typos like I made, but 180 degrees wrong. Makes you wonder where it comes from... then I remember. There are people who make their living spewing propaganda on both sides - intentionally and purposefully. They know there are people out there wanting to validate their pre-existing beliefs, and cater to those people with misinformation.

Remember, RESPECT each other's RIGHT to an opinion - but when you hear totally FALSE information, it is your DUTY to correct it.
 
The problem is what can I do. I believe in what he says but how does the middle class take action? How do we unite? How do our voices get heard? How can we focus our energies to get something accomplished?
 
+Jay Blanc getting Pacific blue cross gets you dental and extended stuff. You can't get it for basic health insurance within B.C.. either way I'd still have to pay into msp (which is not a tax, but it's administered by revenue Canada as far as I know and the rate is dependent on your income)

And in the last few years one private clinic opened up in defiance of the laws and started offering private minor elective surgery and diagnostic testing, but going there gets you kicked off any other list for surgeries. Same applies for developmental services for kids, if you get them any extra help privately they lose their priority with any government service.
 
The entire reason for incorporating is to limit liability.  That same limited liability has been passed on to S-Corps and LLCs (Hey, "limited liability" is right in the name!).  Corporations are also eternal.  The only eternal persons that I know of that have limited liability for their actions are vampires.  The first problem with Citizens United is that it grants rights (speech) to entities that don't suffer the risks of speech (liability or death).  The second problem is that it speaks of the "marketplace of ideas" yet makes no attempt to regulate that market for antitrust violations, i.e. monopolization of the marketplace, by giant corporations.  Thereby, again, granting benefits of personhood without the responsibilities.  If corporations want the benefits of personhood then they should be forced to suffer the liabilities.
 
Well I think Sanders has a good plan but he's only figured out half the
solution. Once someone figures out a plan I can get involved with while
keeping my day job I'm all in. Other than that he's fighting people with
big pockets and time on their hands. If Sanders got people together to
spread the word that would help. Shit I build websites and do SEO for a
living. All we have is numbers. If we combined our skill set into a unified
voice I bet that would make a difference. We need a Martin Luther King of
our generation to unite us. Internet, TV, billboards everywhere. But that's
just my two cents.
 
Corporations are persons too - juridical persons, that is. Now, if they want to be part of the political process, they have to be accountable for it as well. If corporate misconduct can be punished by forced dissolution, that would be a great start.
 
So, if you want to limit freedom of speech by saying each person can donate $XX to back their candidate and/or promote their ideas, what is  XX?
 
+Al Spaulding Freedom of speech isn't in question, it is the current state of the system that only money gets people to listen.
 
The essential problem with the argument that corporations are made of people is that the people in a corporation already can donate up to a certain amount to whatever political cause as individuals. The real problem with allowing nonhuman legal entities the right to contribute to campaign funds is that it allows the people who compose them to double dip.

A more sensible solution would be either strict and mandatory public funding for anyone who can accumulate enough signatures, or to only permit capped donations to campaign funds from individual citizens (to prevent, say, Warren Buffet from having as much of an influence as three hundred of you). Corporations can't donate from their coffers because their stockholders, employees and executives already have. And to ditch SuperPACs.

You can't compete anymore without one, and whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever else, opacity in your campaign funds should offend everyone.
 
The more I hear this guy talk, the more I love him.
 
+Joshua Megnauth you claim I've not read both documents.  That is tyranny right there.  What I have said still stands and is there.  You can't have conservative and liberal, as you said conservationism is stability but liberalism is the opposite it is chaos.

Not all "right wing" is fantasist it depends on how you are comparing them.  fascist is just a modified form of communism and there for its liberal/chaos.  If you are comparing anarchy to tyranny, then tyranny is to the right and that is usually more fascist but it isn't Conservative.  communism is more anarchic and therefor is left and still liberal.  Now if you are comparing Conservative to liberal then Conservative is on the right.  A true Conservative is not a anarchist or tyrant and opposes both of them, they are both bad for individual freedom.  Remember just because someone says they are something you have to watch them for their actions to see if it they match what they say.  Like the ACA was conceived in part by supposedly conservatives but not real ones.  That violates the Constitution, for no where does it give the government the power over healthcare.

If you think social networking is a waste of time then why did you spend so much time write so much or any at all.  Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean I've fabricated anything!  You prove where it says in the Constitution you government can take over your healthcare.  Otherwise you are the one doing the fabrication.

And again one of the rules I know of liberals holds true!  You liberals are just to predictable but after all else what would you expect from chaos!
 
+Joshua Megnauth actually the Constitution works just fine is left alone.  It took care of everything it needed and the busy bodies like liberals think they know better.

I haven't defended 'democracy' in any of my comments, so I don't know why you are attributing that to me.  I'm opposed to democracy.  I know what it is and where it will go.

As to what I described I stand by it and you haven't read everything or understand it.  The french revolution that you seem to hold dear wasn't a good thing.  They murdered thousands and imposed more anarchy and tyranny then they had before.  But if you want that, it might be coming from your like minded friends.

Just like the Constitution a building has a frame and yet is a whole thing unto itself.  If you really understand it and read the federalist papers then it is a definition.  But if you only read the letters and not the spirit of it then you will miss it.  Communism fails ever time its tired.  Freedom only when people let it go but its self doesn't.
 
+Adam Heywood  You need to understand the difference between Communism and Socialism. You seem to think they are interchangeable and they are not. All communist are socialist but not all socialist are communist :) 

In addition I have to chuckle at your grasp of Constitutional law. I suppose we can go ahead and abolish the Supreme Court and get rid of all the lawyers, we don't need any of them. We've got you... lol

I know I sleep better at night knowing geniuses like you are out there protecting my Constitutional rights. I can't tell you how much having the freedom to get sick and die while someone gets rich denying the insurance coverage I payed for means to me... Thanks buddy!!! 

So when you get done salivating over the Constitution, maybe you should try reading some of our founding fathers other writings. I would start with Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine and then maybe move on to some John Locke. Something tells me that will never happen though...your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance alone...
 
+Adam Heywood It seems to me that your big problem is buying into the left-right axis as a dualistic theory of modern politics. It's really not a very good descriptor of... well, anything. As a result of clinging to Conservatives Good, Liberals Baaad, you're engaging in the True Scotsman fallacy.

A: No Conservative government would ever propose anything like the ACA!
B: Mitt Romney did, and all the conservatives in Massachusetts supported it.
A: No TRUE Conservative!

I might point out too that anarchists, while technically "progressive", are by definition about as far right as you can conceivably get. The Left-versus-Right axis is a meme used by political mavens to divide and conquer voting blocs of idiots by making them think each other are evil and stopping them from having productive conversations. As far as it goes, though, removing government influence from every facet of life is about as far rightwards a position as you can take. Frankly, though, left and right described a political theater from 200 years ago. Shoehorning positions into it and labeling them evil and stupid because of where they fall isn't really constructive.

You also seem to swap wildly between meaning conservative as "someone who likes small government" and "someone who doesn't like change". You'd be much more effective at debate if you agreed on definitions with your opponent and kept those definitions steady..
 
Hey, if people can own governmental entities in public, at least people can see it clearly. I would state several cases where it is already occurring, but hidden through manipulation layer (see federal reserve). Things have been headed for Corporate aristocracy since 1870 or so when the corporate law was changed for banks  and other entities to exist more as we see them now. Your money will be a tool, and has been. Its been awful.
 
Time and again, skillful politicians have proven that they can win elections even at a funding disadvantage of 10:1. Having more money to throw at an election or even throwing money at an election is no more successful than several other campaign strategies. By focusing so strictly on campaign finance issues, we are losing sight of more important issues with longer-lasting effects -- and we risk driving even more corrupting money into the system. If we really, really are worried about corporations buying elected representatives, then the problem can be addressed one corrupt official at time. If your city councilman's voting record demonstrates that she is biased towards her biggest campaign contributors, make it known: blog it, write a letter to your newspaper's editor, and put out a sign in your own front lawn. If a senator shakes you down your company with veiled threats in order to get more money out of you, stand up to him like the bully that he is, and then publicly announce what happened. A little bit of backbone negates prohibitively huge quantities of cash.
 
+Shawn Wheeler socialist are just slightly less communist then communist.  That pattern seems to work fine so far and until there is new information or an actual change, I'll keep with it.  The socialist want the same thing as communist they just aren't as committed or extreme.

+Rob Iannacone you are assuming much, that "left-right axis" work very well for me.  Everyone fits somewhere on there.  Based on that pattern it tells a lot of what that persons thinks.

I never said mitt or the government of Mass. was conservative.  They were republican.

You are the first one who I've ever seen claim anarchist are "far right wing" that is funny.  In reality they are 'far left wing'.  Tyranny is more to the right of them but by no means conservative.

I never said I don't like change but 'change for the sake of change' is just chaos.  Just because you can change doesn't mean you should or that it would be a good thing.  I agree the definitions in the dictionary how about you.  I don't compromise with liberals to begin with, they never have anything to bring to the table.
 
+Joshua Megnauth  just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer.

The communist in those countries have destroyed them and you blame the some what conservative.  You might as well blame bush for everything.

Do I really need to say anything thing more about the courts and the aca?  Where is health care in the Constitution like I asked before.  If you can't find it then the government can't take it over.

Look at the goals of fascist and communist they want the same thing.  Total control, just a slightly different path to it.  The differences are irreverent.  marx has ten things listed in the manifesto both want those.
 
Since you refuse to state where in the Constitution the government has the power to enslave people under obama-care-tax.

article 1 section 8 last clause "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers".  That means that if it isn't listed then they can't do it and no where is it listed that government can take over health care.  You can't tax it either that doesn't fit with freedom!

The 10th amendment also backs that up "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  That means also that if it doesn't say it there then the government can't do it.

Now don't try and twist the words.  Look in the dictionary for their meaning you liberals have a bad habit of changing the definitions.  Harkin for example says "we will have more freedom under obama-care.  Only and idiot would think that when someone else is calling the shots.  If you can't make your own choices then you don't have freedom!

Roberts is an activist judge he rewrote it and he needs to be removed.  But then all of the liberals ones need to be removed.  They rail against the very thing that puts them there.  That is just dumb.
 
I'll leave you all to your hating your freedom, what little you have left.
 
Did I mention that you're a nut job? You imply that being provided with healthcare when I could never afford it otherwise is tyranny? Really? I think to create a system where so many can't afford healthcare is tyranny. You just really are a whacko, Just the statement that you're leaving people to their freedom hating is an absurd statement that only a Republican could say with a straight face.
 
Oh, and "enslave people under obama-care-tax"? Are you stupid? I don't think that a tax that MAYBE affect 2% (high estimate) of the population is exactly "enslaving people". More of the rhetoric like the "freedom hating" statement above, and devoid of any logic. Just like Republicans in general, if you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements, people might take you more seriously.
 
Incidentally, no "word twisting" there. I literally copied and pasted exactly what you said in all of it's delusional glory.
 
I've never really cared for Madison's thoughts on that matter, but too often the voting public seems hell-bent on proving me wrong. :-/
 
Until individuals in corporations can be held accountable to all laws that are directed at individuals, they should not also be given all the rights of individuals.  Corporations are legal entities created to protect the individuals in a corporation, so individuals within the corporation cannot be held accountable to all laws directed at individuals.  As a trade off, they should not also have the right to free speech as a corporation.  As individuals, yes.  But not as a corporation.
 
Corporations aren't people. We have a major problem in the US where corporations are extended rights and protections as if they are a person. And like +Rachel Kahler pointed out, there's no mechanism for charging a corporation with negligent homicide and putting the whole thing in prison.

Corporations have basically become America's institutionalized aristocracy, for all intents and purposes. There are laws that just cease to apply to you, when you climb the corporate ladder high enough.
 
The right wing.... Supporting civil rights for toasters since 1922.
 
8.2% isn't big enough to make a point, so let's arbitrarily increase it to 15%.  I can't really view this guy as credible anymore.
 
The Left wing....trying to turn a democratic free society into socialist turmoil, since....ever.
 
@Jeff; Ooooo, using the big "s-word" are we? Not because you know what it means, but because it makes American population want to hide behind their hamburger sculptures. How clever!
 
It's not possible to own the US government, or to own a state. I think if you work hard, you deserve what you've worked for. I don't care if you come from the streets or a high-class family... If you've worked for something, you have earned it.
 
+James Birtwistle, maybe instead of insulting someone for voicing a valid opinion and complaining about America, we should actually DO something about the situation we're in, not just be pushed around by Obama and all the candidates no one wants, including Romney.
 
That is not the same as 12 million people who want one person to win but 3 people can donate 35 million dollars (and remain anonymous) so that an opponent can win.  That is not free speech.  But thanks to Citizens United now Sheldon Addelson and the Koch Brothers now have legal precedent that their voice (via their money) is more important than mine, or yours.
 
+Joe Pugglesville, I don't think the ObamaCare issue is about giving health care to people who can't afford it otherwise. That would be perfect. The problem is that Obama is forcing EVERYONE to have health care, which is taking away our freedom to choose. Also not all Republicans are evil/bad. Neither are Democrats. There are good and bad of both.
 
+Thomas Ferraro That would be the definition of wrong. It seems to me that the left are all bent out of shape over Citizens United more because it breaks the near monopoly on donations that unions and the like have enjoyed all this time.

CU does not say that the EVVVIIIILLLL Koch Brothers voice is more important than yours. If you want to challenge them, form a PAC get to it. If you cannot get sufficient support, then perhaps your views aren't as widely supported as you believe. It's been pointed out many times how amusing it is that the left was cool with unions and related organizations buying elections, but now that supposed right wing groups can more easily get in on the game it's evil and must be stopped!
 
+Christopher Poff Corporations aren't people. This is true. CU didn't say they were people. 

Corporations can own property.
They can hire people.
They can form contracts.
They can conduct commerce.
They can be sued.
They can sue.
And now we can't bar them from political donations.

Given that politics impacts them more and more every day I don't see that as necessarily unreasonable. So, I'll tell you what. Perhaps we can consider reducing the power of an overreaching and ever more encroaching government and then corporations don't have to care so much about politics. Sound good?
 
+James Birtwistle You're accusing someone of not knowing the definition of Socialism, so shall we hear yours?

+Joe Pugglesville Whereas a lot (perhaps most) of +Adam Heywood 's rhetoric is over the top, you didn't answer his legitimate question of what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to do Obamacare.

+Adam Heywood I strongly disagree with Roberts reasoning, but he can hardly be called an activist judge in this regard. While it is exceedingly dishonest to call the tax/penalty a penalty to get it passed and then argue at SCOTUS that it is in fact a tax, Congress does have the power to lay taxes. Whether they do, or should have the power to lay tax on a non-activity is a separate question and also a serious issue. Also, don't misuse words. Slavery has a meaning and this tax hardly qualifies. 
 
+Joshua Megnauth While I'm sure some, probably many, will disagree with me I've long held the belief that Fascism, Communism and Socialism are all different sides of a D-4 labeled Statism.

I realize that in theory Communism should result in a near stateless society but I don't think we can just ignore the history of every single implementation of it. 

My reasoning for this belief is that through either stated belief or resultant action all of these systems exult the State or collective over the individual and rate it supreme. Thus, I think it is fair to categorize them all as Statist to one degree or another. This ignores the general problem of labeling and such. 
 
Meanwhile, the press and the Congress keep talking about overturning the Healthcare act.  Brilliant set of priorities.
 
+Jonathan Butler  Republic, Lost (Lessig), Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Herman) and Zinn's, A Peoples History of the United States should ALL be required reading for...well everyone... :-D
 
+Shawn Wheeler I'm just going to say... no. We have enough left wing texts in schools already. :)
 
I continue to be amused by the fact that the only thing that people on the right bring to the discussion table, is flinging insults. I've given up trying to engage people like you in intelligent debate, +Wayne Young. You're a bullying political fanatic who's more interested in burning people at the stake for supposed witchcraft than actually CARING that we have children in this country who DIE because their parents can't afford health care.
 
+Wayne Young I'm just going to say, its not left and right. It's top and bottom. If you had read those books you would know that.
 
Is that Colonel Sanders?  I can't see the beard behind the mic, but I'm pretty sure it is...
Add a comment...