More Left Wing Garbage from Hollywood
-
rj-27 — 12 years ago(January 16, 2014 08:16 AM)
Oversplayer, no matter how you dice it up, you have the same revolving door of politicians fighting over the same bag of groceries, bought and paid for by the taxpayers which include the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity who definitely pay their "fair share".
Government is a gang of thieves writ large; tyranny backed up by threat of violence.
Rich Democrats are even more hypocritical than their Republican counterparts, if that's possible. -
txwaho — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 11:25 PM)
oversplayer, I always get a kick out of the Leftists saying how the RICH RIGHT don't help the poor. But they never seem to have a comeback for all the RICH LEFT HOLLYWOOD types (I won't even pick on the political, musician, or athletic types) like Moore, Penn, Babs, Oprahs, and on and on, who I haven't noticed "helping the poor" recently, by giving them anything, but more importantly by helping them MAKE THEIR OWN WAY. You'll never be able to give them out of poverty. But I guess having them spend $10 to come see your movie or blindly follow your feel-good talkshow network is at least taking their mind off their plight, right??
An independent mind is difficult to enslave.
When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 08:53 AM)
much of what you say i sympathise with, but the democrats, maybe they are slightly less corrupt at this point, but on the whole they are still very beholden to their benefactors, and personally i would rather not have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. just look at hillary clinton, true establishment through and through, plays both sides of the fence, in public agreeing sometimes that wallstreet needs reigning in, then at fundraisers telling wallstreet they have been unfairly demonised and she shall protect them. look at the money she raised while out of office due to illness, millions of dollars straight in her war chest, but like all politicians, they are not taking that money from those donors to not listen to those donors first. that is why the donors give the money, they know she can be 'trusted' unlike an elizabeth warren who terrifies them. unless the democratic party makes a major course correction, it is not a savior if you want personal freedoms, money out of politics, equal opportunity and fair markets.
look at obama, all the things he criticised the bush administration for he then either continued or expanded, warrantless wiretapping, signature drone strikes, no bid military contracts, lobbyists running the show (why is the head of the fcc the former chief lobbyist for the cable companies? why is just about every economic advisor a former and usually future wallstreeter? obama said they would stop lobbyists working in washington, then made so many loopholes for guys they liked, and now has just dropped all pretense and quietly forgotten having said it) why is a constitutional scholar executing american citizens without even a trial in absentia? why is the fda saying they do not even know what is in the food? why are more tax loopholes being created that happen to benefit large bipartisan donors? i would have been behind obama if he had ever read his little posters with the word change on them, the idea of someone 'changing the game not just playing the old games a little better' would have been a benefit to anyone interested in returning to a functioning democracy. but that is not what happened, change on the outside, continuity on the inside.
the republican do nothing congress certainly makes everything more painful and difficult so they are certainly not an answer either, but if any candidate proposed an amendment to get money and lobbyists out of politics to get us back to government of the people for the people, or to end corporate personhood and thus at least limit the financial 'political speech' (bribes) of international corporations, as long as the candidate was not batsheet insane, they would be worth supporting on that alone, as at least it would be the first major step back towards a system where the representatives are answerable to the voters first, second and last rather than the voters being an afterthought to get to once the needs of the donors have been serviced. we have a system where in one house the candidate with more money wins 96% of the time and in the other house it is 94% of the time. whoever sells out more to big donor money, 50% of which comes from the 400 richest americans, wins, and anyone who does not obey those special interests either has no hope of reelection or never even gets to stand for office in the first place, as another more 'trustworthy' (ie agreeable to the donors) candidate is often picked to stand by the party system.
people should remember there were in fact elections in the soviet union, only before the public election, the candidates to run were picked by members of the party, so the public only got to choose from those approved of by the powerful minority. i am finding it harder to see the difference with the US system, where before we get to an election, the candidates we may choose from have been picked out for us by the donors, as only candidates 'with a reasonable chance of winning' end up on the ballot or with major press coverage or in the debates. the difference is in that by the end of the soviet union 9.7% of the population were party members and therefore part of the pre selection process, in the US im not sure how many decimal places would be needed to show the population involved in the pre selection process, i believe 400 out of 300,000,000 would be about 0.0001%? when the system is less democratic than the soviet union, we have a bigger problem than what the corporate tax rate should be.
get us back to a democracy first, then we can debate policy, right now no matter which candidate backed by most of the same people gets in, the results are basically the same with only a different letter next to the name. -
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 19, 2014 12:55 AM)
to get us back to government of the people for the people
I see some hope in Dr. Ben Carson. Of course, he is trying, well the ones who want him, are trying to raise money, cause whether we like it or not, you can't do
anything
without money. He says he will run if the people clamor for him. And I say Yes, but they will kill him also. So we shall see. Then there is the belief, which I am being convinced of more every day, that Obama will not leave. He is now our President for Life.
An independent mind is difficult to enslave. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 20, 2014 04:10 AM)
the belief that obama is president for life? which movie was this? that is the same crazy talk that was said about jimmy carter and bill clinton by right wing conspiracy theorists that somehow the left only claim to care about the poor to buy their support to establish dictatorship, it is lunacy. show one single example of anything one of the weakest presidents has done to over throw the entire system? and if you say recess appointments i will point out that he has made less than almost any other, the people who say that are just trying to criticise him for doing anything at all ever about anything to try and force him to sit on his hands and run out the clock, so the people saying that are usually themselves the ones only interested in personal power rather than policy.
-
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 20, 2014 07:51 PM)
Well, Tom, you will have to admit that he has not been like any of the other foregoing Presidents, and seems to blatantly and regularly disregard the Constitution and put America to shame before other countries. So as time is passing, I am beginning to believe that he could pull it off. Of course, it will be done in such a way that it is
for our benefit
, don't you know, just like every other liberty that has been encroached upon. I will keep you in mind either way: if it DOES happen, or if it DOES NOT, which I am hoping is the case. Sends cold chills to me every time just to think about it. We are definitely lost as a country if that happens.
I describe myself as fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and a personal responsibilitartian. - Amy Alkon, award-winning nationally syndicated advice columnist -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 23, 2014 03:02 AM)
can you back any of this up at all? tell me some of the things he has done like no other? the patriot act and going after whistleblowers, crony capitalism, special interests, no bid government contracts, the loss of privacy, presidents declaring war without congressional approval, these are systemic problems which have been going on for decades, through multiple administrations, the trend started with allowing certain groups to pour untold money into the political system, it started with supreme court decisions at the end of the 1970s and was well under way during the reagan era, it has only gotten worse since, the problems are money bundling super pacs and dark money contributions and 'money is speech, so if i have more money i get to have more speech' instead of one man one vote.
too many people get distracted with oh if my guy gets in it will be better or its this or that person and it will all be ok if they are gone. it stops people actually doing something about the root causes, democrat or republican, obama or bush, the results are the same, money in politics and lobbyists privileged positions are the real problems, but people get bogged down bickering about which animal should be on the lapel pin of the corrupt politician in office, as if a crook wearing an elephant is better than a crook wearing a donkey.
the problems need to be addressed from the ground up, until the system of how the political power holders are influenced is repaired it makes no difference. the fact is the people benefiting from this system dont need to set up a ruler for life, the only way to have a chance of being elected is to have a ton of money which means in an election we can only pick from candidates who are sell outs who have promised to run the system for the benefit of their benefactors. one of the things that stops people really changing things is the illusion we have a choice or any influence, that things can really be different if we vote for this guy instead of that guy, when both guys are backed by a lot of the same people and either will help those same people over the rest of us. if they set up a dictator it would probably actually push people to finally stand up in numbers and lead to a system reset, the quickest way the people now in power would lose power is to give people something to seriously fight against, so sitting around talking about king obama is distraction, smoke and mirrors, it is political games to get you to support this guy against that guy, it is theatre. while you are discussing dictators you are not discussing campaign contributions and oil subsidies, which usually the people talking about dictators are just as responsible for.
i really dont feel the political games or wether this side or that side is winning this week really matters in the long run but i am still curious of the examples of what obama has done that is so groundbreaking. the idea he has the spine or the desire to be a dictator is absurd, he is completely weak, his negotiation tactic is usually to offer the other side everything they actually want from the start then ends up being negotiated even further towards their side, he barely ever fights back politically, the whole rabid paranoid hatred of obama seems to be totally pointless, he is just another bought politician like ted cruz or harry reed or mitt romney, not really any worse. i mean look at 'obamacare', the panic and hatred, oh my god its communism, the whole thing is a nonsense to score political points, the fact is the affordable care act was thought up by the heritage foundation as a market based solution to avoid having state healthcare, we all know it is a conservative proposal, we all know mitt romney implemented it while govenor, we all know most of the republicans in senate or the house today supported it during the 1990s, yet we all pretend they actually think that the thing they were in favour of as pro business suddenly became marxist once they wouldnt get the political credit for it. they know it will be popular and successful so they dont want their opponents getting credit, that is the long and the short of it, the whole making up stuff about lenin saying healthcare would lead to socialism like ben carson lied about is all nonsense fear obama and take away his power by voting for me or my team instead tripe. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 06:35 PM)
this is a good story for anyone interested in a blatant example of big money in politics even if its from a guy I don't agree with mostly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxF_u0q9yPw&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=400 -
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 07:04 PM)
Remind me to charge you for that extra bit of work I shouldn't have to do if you
really
wanted us to follow it.
whine whine whine
I describe myself as fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and a personal responsibilitartian. - Amy Alkon, award-winning nationally syndicated advice columnist. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 07:17 PM)
no problem just thought that you might find that video interesting, it goes to my point that both sides have crooks, the only answer may be something like a wolfpac solution, going through the less corrupted state legislatures and changing the way the big name politicians get elected, rather than hoping the foxes will guard the chicken coop.
-
txwaho — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 07:34 PM)
both sides have crooks
For sure. My Marine cousin says "they're all crooks!" However, I'm certainly leaning towards Dr. Ben Carson if he will run. Truthfully, I think it will take a MAJOR catastrophe to affect any change in the overall politics of this country. The Democrats are whiners and the Republicans are self-righteous. And they are all pretty much greedy bigots. I wouldn't say State Legislatures are less corrupted, not at least here in TX. I would like to send you an article about who is controlling a major part of this country but I don't have the link as it was sent to me by email.
An independent mind is difficult to enslave. -
tom_grainger88 — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 07:52 AM)
if you look at money out of politics groups like that wolfpac, they are already starting to win in the states, they need 2 thirds of the states to call for a constitutional convention, they intend to put in an ammendment ceasing human rights for limited liability corporations, so no religious rights or speech rights and therefore no right to donate to politicians for texaco or pizza hut, as well as insisting publicly funded elections, ie to get elected you need more people to support you based on your actions and voting record, instead of the current system where if you keep a few special donors happy they will simply swamp the news with attack ads against your opponent. texas kansas (now practically the state of koch) arizona and the carolinas have the most corrupt state governments, but even if 16 states refuse to play ball, an ammendment can be put in place that will over rule every supreme court decision that unlimited money in politics is a good thing, and congress can do nothing about it, it will go straight over their authority. we dont need a catastrophe we just need people to start making some noise that we are not just disgruntled, we wont just whine and complain but do nothing and hope a new president fixes it for us without us needing to bother, we will have our government back, it can be done peacefully and democratically, luckily most of the state houses do not hold career politicians, though the republicans about a month ago had a meeting where they thanked big donors and talked about how crucial out of state money was for keeping republicans in office, look at old mitch in kentucky, if he had to rely on support from kentucky he would be gone, almost the whole of his support is from elsewhere, some of it not even from america thanks to dark money laws which mean we dont even get to know who is bribing our representatives if it is bundled through pacs, and with multinational corporations french, japanese and venezuelan shareholders can now have a say in who is elected in america.
personally i dont trust ben carson because he says things he knows are not true if it helps push his agenda, the fake quoting lenin that social healthcare leads to communism was just one such example, even conservatives cannot pretend something that exsists in every other developed nation is akin to communism unless they also believe we lost the cold war, but far worse than that, he was for destroying for profit health insurance companies entirely and forcing them to pay for socialised catastrophic care through the government, then when he started to be wooed by the hard right he did a 180 and started attacking the affordable care act for being a road to socialism, despite it being far to the right and more pro business than his own earlier more socialist proposals. as soon as a man will say whatever he thinks the current audience will want to hear to the point of pretending to be one thing to one person and another thing to another person, it no longer matters what else he says, there is no way of trusting that he means it. if he thinks talking about money in politics will make him popular he will do it until it loses him popularity, ben carson has not even been elected yet and he already bases what he says on which answer will earn him more money and fame.
look through the rest of his history, he is a fan of affirmative action which he benefited from which came from political correctness, but in front of the right audience claims pc limits freedom and opportunity for others. put him in a room full of black donors and he would likely go back to saying the opposite once more. he was for legalising marijuana based on the medical evidence, him being an md, of it being non addictive, less harmful than alcohol and an alternative to opiate pain medication which leads to less overdose deaths, now he is trying to play a conservative teaparty darling he has about faced calling it a gateway drug because he knows what more conservatives want to hear. that is not principled. you may like something he says now but if he is not just saying what he thinks you want to hear now, he will later say he was just saying that when he wants to try and win the support of independents, before he has even run for office he is trying to get himself in the best starting point, he is a typical politician through and through, right now he is not in the establishment so his edge is throwing stones at their tent, once he is inside that tent he has shown he would be just as willing to be throwing those stones back out at us.
Love talking with you. Just haven't had time to answer your last challenge.