I can't stand and understand that when someone is trying to speculate on Chernobyl disaster or make fun of it((( now there is similar situation in Japan. it seems that humanity hasn't learned anything( so what next?
They didnt have free markets and capitalism when the chernobyl disaster happened. That whole place was government managed no private industry involved. Look at what happened. Even the BP disaster will never come close to causing as much damage and loss of life as what happened there 27 years ago.
Anonymous! What do "free markets and capitalism" have to do with the Chernobyl Accident? The "Great Recession" has done more financial damage than Chernobyl, admitedly not necessarily to human life unless of course you consider the harm the financial meltdown has done to countries on the precipitice of disaster already, driving millions into poverty. The Deepwater Horizon upset an entire ecosystem for which we have no way to ascribe a price tag and destroyed the livlihood of thousands on middle class hard working folks. You are trying to make a point but exactly what is that point? Neither a wholly unregulated capitalism nor a totalitarian dictatorship strangling an economy are desirable. The answer lies somewhere in between, a delicate balancing act between free enterprise and watchful oversight. Even Greenspan has belatedly agreed that pure capitalism does not work, that ultimately it fails. Fortunately, America's 3 Mile Island was not another Chernobyl.
Because you have been attacking capitalism for being to blame for the BP spill but ignore how collectives and statism fails with regards to incidents such as Chernobyl. If That meltdown happened in America, you would be using it as aclub to abolish capitalism to this very day! And the great recession happened BECAUSE! We no longer have free markets! the government forced banks to give loans to people who couldnt pay them off, the government restricts individual liberty by setting up travel bans to prevent unemployed workers from following jobs to other states that are more conservative, the government confiscates money from the elderly and disabled to force them to go on SSI, the government is taxing small businesses to powder AD NAuseum! Greenspan hates capitaiism so much he should move to China Cuba or Venezuela.
The markets ARE free, and it's the deregulation that caused the recession. The banks were NOT forced to give bad loans; they CHOSE to do it, so that they could be paid off when they failed. There are no "travel bans" within America; you are completely full of it on that point. No confiscation of assets from anyone (elderly, disabled, or otherwise), and small businesses are actually getting HELP from the gov't. (at least, when the Republicans choose not to block it). There is not a single fact in your post; I dare you to provide proof.
RAYGUN declared WAR on the middle class in 1980 and the RETHUGS have been destroying it ever since, while lining their pockets with cheap foreign labor. America, WAKE UP!
WRONG! Republicans controlled the Senate during most of the Reagan years... and for all practical purposes given the number of Blue Dog Dems in the House (many of whom announced their new allegiance to the GOP while in office) the Republicans effectively controlled the House as well.
Why is it that whenever someone speaks out against government medling in business liberals think that it automatically means allowing anarchy? OF COURSE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS!! COMMON SENSE!!
You missed the point.
The point is not, "Gee. Why does the GOP suddenly care so much that Obama clean up this mess?" Of course they do. Everyone does.
The point is, that GOP has been very much against government regulation. BUT if things like this, banking, and other things Mr. Fiore mentioned WERE regulated by the government, perhaps these disasters wouldn't have occurred in the first place. It's precisely disasters like these which motivate liberals to focus on government regulation. The disconnect between not trusting banks with bailout dollars while still wanting them to have free reign over their business is a laughable one.
It goes too far however when you create too much red tape that prevents the creation of new jobs and prevents the little guy from starting his own small business and thereby climbing the economic ladder. C'mon! Regulate business but what about regulating the government? What about regulating unions thugs? Where does it all end?
Does anybody remember the Clinton years? You know, when folks were crying that their brother/sister/family member had a "small" business that would "definitely" go under due to Clinton's policies? Those companies - and workers - did very well after all, as it turns out.
So did the general populace, until Bush came in and the economy fell apart. The "big" companies then received tax breaks and lax regulation; nevertheless they cut workers mercilessly and the small firms were soon out of business. Those firms that did survive began to depend upon temp workers and day laborers.
Later, even temp workers and day laborers couldn't find any work. A hundred or more eager workers showing up for fewer than a dozen day jobs, day after day.
Homelessness increased. Civil liberties were eroded. The Constitution was emasculated. Pollution and industrial accidents increased. Worker's rights fell by the wayside.
Eventually the military and mercenary corporations such as Blackwater were the few remaining places where people could find steady jobs. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to provide incentives for companies to hire more workers. Instead, those very tax cuts forced schools, universities and other government-funded entities to lay off or fire large numbers of employees.
I am no fan of labor unions. They had a valid purpose back in the days of the robber barons, but for a long time I thought that they had outlived their usefulness. Now, they seem to be needed again. I have no desire to become a Union man, but if that is what it takes to get a paying job I'll have to rethink my position.
The Bush Jr. supporters willfully ignored the warning signs until after Obama took office. Suddenly all of the nation's ills were blamed on the new president, though he simply inherited them.
Clinton left office with historically high budget surpluses and employment rates. Bush the Lesser squandered all of that in the name of Big Business and ill-conceived wars, yet his supporters saw nothing wrong with any of that.
Our government is designed to be self-regulating, but Bush's Imperial Presidency did its best to dismantle that structure. Those who would accuse Obama of overextending the office of the President had better examine his predecessor's conduct a bit more closely. G.W. Bush entered the White House under a false banner of "compassionate conservatism" and decried "nation building", both of which he quickly discarded as a matter of convenience.
A once respectable Republican party devolved over the past thirty years into a lock-step cadre dedicated to destroying the common man in order to benefit big business.
Submitted by mainestategop on Sat, 2010-07-03 12:39.
Hmmm where to begin.
Does anybody remember the Clinton years? You know, when folks were crying that their brother/sister/family member had a "small" business that would "definitely" go under due to Clinton's policies? Those companies - and workers - did very well after all, as it turns out.
Actually small business in the later years of Clinton suffered greatly when he passed several bills that would have harmed small businesses and at home businesses in particuar among other things. Clinton passed for example and ergonomics bill that would have shut down small businesses at home due to government interference and red tape. Bush thankfully got rid of it but many businesses suffered.Lets n ot forget Hillary care which would force people to buy useless and expensive policies and even tap into wages just like in Massachusetts. And lets not forget the community Reinvestment act which forced banks to give dangerous loans to welfare bums who refused to do any work. That alone did the most damage.
So did the general populace, until Bush came in and the economy fell apart. The "big" companies then received tax breaks and lax regulation; nevertheless they cut workers mercilessly and the small firms were soon out of business. Those firms that did survive began to depend upon temp workers and day laborers.
The recession actually began under Clinton's final year mostly from the before mentioned regulations. THe job market dried up in the summer of 2000 and unemployment began to increase also businesses beceme less profitable. THose companies that got tax breaks paid 97% of the tax burden and still do. THe problem was his cuts were too small and not broad. It didnt even remove the problems of outsourcing and government regulations that were hindering profit and thereby hindering job growth.
I am no fan of labor unions. They had a valid purpose back in the days of the robber barons, but for a long time I thought that they had outlived their usefulness. Now, they seem to be needed again. I have no desire to become a Union man, but if that is what it takes to get a paying job I'll have to rethink my position.
If you do you will have to pay massive dues and the unions will eventually go back to their old ways of extorting companies for outragous salaries and pensions. Thats one of the other reasons we are suffering. Big labor made business unprofitable. Most of these union jobs aren't supposed to pay 50000 a year. While I agree they were neccesary then they have gone too far and need to be restrained.
The Bush Jr. supporters willfully ignored the warning signs until after Obama took office. Suddenly all of the nation's ills were blamed on the new president, though he simply inherited them.
Like They did with Bush? The truth is Obama has done far worse than Bush Jr. We have tripled our national debt and spending is out of control. Not only that, he has appointed marxists to his cabinet including Anita Dunn who prasied communist butcher Mao Tse Tung during a commencement speech. In addition Obama wants to have government regulation against the internet which would prevent us from deciding what we want to read or watch. This violates free speech and prevents the spread of ideas. Bush Never did this in his term.
Our government is designed to be self-regulating, but Bush's Imperial Presidency did its best to dismantle that structure.
WHAT?! Government itself is no way to protect freedom. Everytime in history nations have resorted to statism to solve their problems government puts limits on personal and civil liberties. Just like in the USSR and China. Its happening rapidly under Obama as mentioned before. If you go to the libertarion ping list on freerepublic for expample you will find a long list of abuses by the federal government even by state governments. (most democrat) that violate the constitution. As reagan woefully put it. (But he unfortunately didnt follow through) government is not the soultion but is the problem. You either have limited government or limited freedom One or the other.
A once respectable Republican party devolved over the past thirty years into a lock-step cadre dedicated to destroying the common man in order to benefit big business.
Like when Obama and a Dem dominated gov took my money and gave it to big business?
Good work Mark! This one hit the nail right on the head.
On a seperate topic..
Obama is doing a good job, as well as any mortal man could in a position like he is in. I'm glad he is there and not Bush Jr no matter what his failings. Good lord, the man is a MAN, not "The Son of Jor-EL". If you think you can do better than get started!
"Obama is doing a good job, as well as any mortal man could in a position like he is in. I'm glad he is there and not Bush Jr no matter what his failings. Good lord, the man is a MAN, not "The Son of Jor-EL". If you think you can do better than get started!"
@Anonymous Um, hey, buddy. Are you, like, excusing Barry for how he's handling this f*cking BP mess? Right that he's not "The Son of Jor-El", i.e. Superman, but what the f*ck, man?! He approved MORE f*cking oil leases in shallow water (if you call less than 500 feet shallow) even after he had just earlier announced that ALL NEW f*cking oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico were going to be put on hold. See, the problem with Barry is that he has NO F*CKING PRINCIPLES. None!
How can anyone respect a guy like Barry that's such a lying, unprincipled hypocrite that doesn't do anything but pay lip-service to doing the right thing in a given situation? Publicly he states that X will be done, then behind the scenes he doesn't do X and does the polar opposite of X and expects everyone not to notice.
In many ways, Barry is far worse than W. ever was. How? At least with W. you knew where he stood and didn't think, "Oh, that W. is just saying that, but really we all know W.'s going to do just the opposite." With Barry, you can count on him screwing you in the end. He holds out the progressive pebble in his hand and tells you to take it, but then at the last second, he quickly snatches his hand away, leaving you filled with feelings of loss, betrayal and being played for a sucker. I don't like Barry at all.
The last time I checked the financial problems, banking, real estate, healthcare costs, coal mining anything else that is easy to blame the last administration on didn't just happen in the past 10 years ... These have been boiling and brewing for years and years ... Its WAY to easy in todays mindset with a nanosecond attention span to blame the "last guy". With that being said anyone expecting this clown with ZERO experience to "fix" everything in 1 year or even 4 years is getting what they deserve ... let down
Well MH, you're right...they are all clowns, Obama included. So the question is, when are the real clowns, the American People, going to STOP continually voting for these evil A-holes? I'll answer my own question---from the look of it, never! 95 percent of incumbent politicians get re-elected. We'll see if this changes this Fall with the midterm elections.
We've got a system that was rigged from the beginning. We've got a two party system that leaves no room for other "third" parties. As Ralph Nader said during the 2000 election season, they are just tweedle dumb and tweedle dee. Two halves of the same entity. Both halves keep supporting the continuation of the empire. We've got over 700 military bases stationed all over this planet; sucking up money from our treasury, thereby taking resources from much needed things like fixing our infrastructure, schools, switching to a carbonless energy system, etc.
Right now, we probably have the most corrupt governments of any time, federal as well as state. We've got all our politicians on the dole. This is a time were our representational democracy is least representing the citizenry. Where we the citizens have no voice.
Will our citizens wake up and start voting in candidates from new third parties who truly will attempt to combat the control corporations have over our system and represent their constituents? I do hope so. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Then why is it that we have the tea party types, on the right, and those on the left, ready to re-elect those politicians who are responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place? Are we all insane?
Blame to Jimmy Carter???LOL...you mean the same guy who made us drive 55?? The same guy who put those solar panel "thingys" on the Whitehouse,the same ones Ronnie Raygun took down~!!??
Oil was under $8/bbl in 1998...that's why the Cheney/Bush cabal had to get rid of Saddam...the US oil cartel aka OPEC couldn't control his oil production with the oil for food program...hence 9/11 and the invasion!
JCW
Barak Obamma is just a better ass wipe than Bush...thats the real change ever1 voted for without knowing better > though truth be told they were all snakes.
Ron Reagan never put that into practice. Of course government is the problem. But that was never practiced. Now we have a 6 month moratorium coming up thats going to tank the gulf economy when we already have enough economic problems already.
"The US Congress passed the Oil Pollution Bill of 1990, which capped liability in such accidents at $ 75 million. To make an oil company pay higher damages, Washington would have to provide proof of deliberate negligence or regulatory misconduct."
That's government regulation. Works great, don't it? If I recall CIA wing of the GOP head Bush the Elder was El Presidente at the time. Nobody (Clinton, Bush the dumber, Obama) in the following 20 years seemed to care to repeal it. Call it government health insurance for Big Oil with a $75,000,000.00 deductible. Guess who is responsible for the paying balance? That's right. Now, bend over.
Trust Me! I promise to voluntarily regulate myself, honest. Where else have you seen the effects of voluntary regulation, self-policing or pushover regulation?
Comments
I can't stand and understand
I can't stand and understand that when someone is trying to speculate on Chernobyl disaster or make fun of it((( now there is similar situation in Japan. it seems that humanity hasn't learned anything( so what next?
They didnt have free markets
They didnt have free markets and capitalism when the chernobyl disaster happened. That whole place was government managed no private industry involved. Look at what happened. Even the BP disaster will never come close to causing as much damage and loss of life as what happened there 27 years ago.
Anonymous! What do "free
Anonymous! What do "free markets and capitalism" have to do with the Chernobyl Accident? The "Great Recession" has done more financial damage than Chernobyl, admitedly not necessarily to human life unless of course you consider the harm the financial meltdown has done to countries on the precipitice of disaster already, driving millions into poverty. The Deepwater Horizon upset an entire ecosystem for which we have no way to ascribe a price tag and destroyed the livlihood of thousands on middle class hard working folks. You are trying to make a point but exactly what is that point? Neither a wholly unregulated capitalism nor a totalitarian dictatorship strangling an economy are desirable. The answer lies somewhere in between, a delicate balancing act between free enterprise and watchful oversight. Even Greenspan has belatedly agreed that pure capitalism does not work, that ultimately it fails. Fortunately, America's 3 Mile Island was not another Chernobyl.
Because you have been
Because you have been attacking capitalism for being to blame for the BP spill but ignore how collectives and statism fails with regards to incidents such as Chernobyl. If That meltdown happened in America, you would be using it as aclub to abolish capitalism to this very day! And the great recession happened BECAUSE! We no longer have free markets! the government forced banks to give loans to people who couldnt pay them off, the government restricts individual liberty by setting up travel bans to prevent unemployed workers from following jobs to other states that are more conservative, the government confiscates money from the elderly and disabled to force them to go on SSI, the government is taxing small businesses to powder AD NAuseum! Greenspan hates capitaiism so much he should move to China Cuba or Venezuela.
The markets ARE free, and
The markets ARE free, and it's the deregulation that caused the recession. The banks were NOT forced to give bad loans; they CHOSE to do it, so that they could be paid off when they failed. There are no "travel bans" within America; you are completely full of it on that point. No confiscation of assets from anyone (elderly, disabled, or otherwise), and small businesses are actually getting HELP from the gov't. (at least, when the Republicans choose not to block it). There is not a single fact in your post; I dare you to provide proof.
RAYGUN declared WAR on the
RAYGUN declared WAR on the middle class in 1980 and the RETHUGS have been destroying it ever since, while lining their pockets with cheap foreign labor. America, WAKE UP!
The Democrats ran congress
The Democrats ran congress and the Senate at that time. No mention of that.
WRONG! Republicans
WRONG! Republicans controlled the Senate during most of the Reagan years... and for all practical purposes given the number of Blue Dog Dems in the House (many of whom announced their new allegiance to the GOP while in office) the Republicans effectively controlled the House as well.
Why is it that whenever
Why is it that whenever someone speaks out against government medling in business liberals think that it automatically means allowing anarchy? OF COURSE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS!! COMMON SENSE!!
You missed the point. The
You missed the point.
The point is not, "Gee. Why does the GOP suddenly care so much that Obama clean up this mess?" Of course they do. Everyone does.
The point is, that GOP has been very much against government regulation. BUT if things like this, banking, and other things Mr. Fiore mentioned WERE regulated by the government, perhaps these disasters wouldn't have occurred in the first place. It's precisely disasters like these which motivate liberals to focus on government regulation. The disconnect between not trusting banks with bailout dollars while still wanting them to have free reign over their business is a laughable one.
It goes too far however when
It goes too far however when you create too much red tape that prevents the creation of new jobs and prevents the little guy from starting his own small business and thereby climbing the economic ladder. C'mon! Regulate business but what about regulating the government? What about regulating unions thugs? Where does it all end?
The unions are now and have
The unions are now and have been highly regulated since the 40s (google the Taft-Hartley Act).
And the government is also regulated--that's actually the very essence of government.
So your point is just plain silly.
Does anybody remember the
Does anybody remember the Clinton years? You know, when folks were crying that their brother/sister/family member had a "small" business that would "definitely" go under due to Clinton's policies? Those companies - and workers - did very well after all, as it turns out.
So did the general populace, until Bush came in and the economy fell apart. The "big" companies then received tax breaks and lax regulation; nevertheless they cut workers mercilessly and the small firms were soon out of business. Those firms that did survive began to depend upon temp workers and day laborers.
Later, even temp workers and day laborers couldn't find any work. A hundred or more eager workers showing up for fewer than a dozen day jobs, day after day.
Homelessness increased. Civil liberties were eroded. The Constitution was emasculated. Pollution and industrial accidents increased. Worker's rights fell by the wayside.
Eventually the military and mercenary corporations such as Blackwater were the few remaining places where people could find steady jobs. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to provide incentives for companies to hire more workers. Instead, those very tax cuts forced schools, universities and other government-funded entities to lay off or fire large numbers of employees.
I am no fan of labor unions. They had a valid purpose back in the days of the robber barons, but for a long time I thought that they had outlived their usefulness. Now, they seem to be needed again. I have no desire to become a Union man, but if that is what it takes to get a paying job I'll have to rethink my position.
The Bush Jr. supporters willfully ignored the warning signs until after Obama took office. Suddenly all of the nation's ills were blamed on the new president, though he simply inherited them.
Clinton left office with historically high budget surpluses and employment rates. Bush the Lesser squandered all of that in the name of Big Business and ill-conceived wars, yet his supporters saw nothing wrong with any of that.
Our government is designed to be self-regulating, but Bush's Imperial Presidency did its best to dismantle that structure. Those who would accuse Obama of overextending the office of the President had better examine his predecessor's conduct a bit more closely. G.W. Bush entered the White House under a false banner of "compassionate conservatism" and decried "nation building", both of which he quickly discarded as a matter of convenience.
A once respectable Republican party devolved over the past thirty years into a lock-step cadre dedicated to destroying the common man in order to benefit big business.
Hmmm where to begin. Does
Hmmm where to begin.
Does anybody remember the Clinton years? You know, when folks were crying that their brother/sister/family member had a "small" business that would "definitely" go under due to Clinton's policies? Those companies - and workers - did very well after all, as it turns out.
Actually small business in the later years of Clinton suffered greatly when he passed several bills that would have harmed small businesses and at home businesses in particuar among other things. Clinton passed for example and ergonomics bill that would have shut down small businesses at home due to government interference and red tape. Bush thankfully got rid of it but many businesses suffered.Lets n ot forget Hillary care which would force people to buy useless and expensive policies and even tap into wages just like in Massachusetts. And lets not forget the community Reinvestment act which forced banks to give dangerous loans to welfare bums who refused to do any work. That alone did the most damage.
So did the general populace, until Bush came in and the economy fell apart. The "big" companies then received tax breaks and lax regulation; nevertheless they cut workers mercilessly and the small firms were soon out of business. Those firms that did survive began to depend upon temp workers and day laborers.
The recession actually began under Clinton's final year mostly from the before mentioned regulations. THe job market dried up in the summer of 2000 and unemployment began to increase also businesses beceme less profitable. THose companies that got tax breaks paid 97% of the tax burden and still do. THe problem was his cuts were too small and not broad. It didnt even remove the problems of outsourcing and government regulations that were hindering profit and thereby hindering job growth.
I am no fan of labor unions. They had a valid purpose back in the days of the robber barons, but for a long time I thought that they had outlived their usefulness. Now, they seem to be needed again. I have no desire to become a Union man, but if that is what it takes to get a paying job I'll have to rethink my position.
If you do you will have to pay massive dues and the unions will eventually go back to their old ways of extorting companies for outragous salaries and pensions. Thats one of the other reasons we are suffering. Big labor made business unprofitable. Most of these union jobs aren't supposed to pay 50000 a year. While I agree they were neccesary then they have gone too far and need to be restrained.
The Bush Jr. supporters willfully ignored the warning signs until after Obama took office. Suddenly all of the nation's ills were blamed on the new president, though he simply inherited them.
Like They did with Bush? The truth is Obama has done far worse than Bush Jr. We have tripled our national debt and spending is out of control. Not only that, he has appointed marxists to his cabinet including Anita Dunn who prasied communist butcher Mao Tse Tung during a commencement speech. In addition Obama wants to have government regulation against the internet which would prevent us from deciding what we want to read or watch. This violates free speech and prevents the spread of ideas. Bush Never did this in his term.
Our government is designed to be self-regulating, but Bush's Imperial Presidency did its best to dismantle that structure.
WHAT?! Government itself is no way to protect freedom. Everytime in history nations have resorted to statism to solve their problems government puts limits on personal and civil liberties. Just like in the USSR and China. Its happening rapidly under Obama as mentioned before. If you go to the libertarion ping list on freerepublic for expample you will find a long list of abuses by the federal government even by state governments. (most democrat) that violate the constitution. As reagan woefully put it. (But he unfortunately didnt follow through) government is not the soultion but is the problem. You either have limited government or limited freedom One or the other.
A once respectable Republican party devolved over the past thirty years into a lock-step cadre dedicated to destroying the common man in order to benefit big business.
Like when Obama and a Dem dominated gov took my money and gave it to big business?
Very well said, bravo.
Very well said, bravo.
Good work Mark! This one
Good work Mark! This one hit the nail right on the head.
On a seperate topic..
Obama is doing a good job, as well as any mortal man could in a position like he is in. I'm glad he is there and not Bush Jr no matter what his failings. Good lord, the man is a MAN, not "The Son of Jor-EL". If you think you can do better than get started!
"Obama is doing a good job,
"Obama is doing a good job, as well as any mortal man could in a position like he is in. I'm glad he is there and not Bush Jr no matter what his failings. Good lord, the man is a MAN, not "The Son of Jor-EL". If you think you can do better than get started!"
@Anonymous Um, hey, buddy. Are you, like, excusing Barry for how he's handling this f*cking BP mess? Right that he's not "The Son of Jor-El", i.e. Superman, but what the f*ck, man?! He approved MORE f*cking oil leases in shallow water (if you call less than 500 feet shallow) even after he had just earlier announced that ALL NEW f*cking oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico were going to be put on hold. See, the problem with Barry is that he has NO F*CKING PRINCIPLES. None!
How can anyone respect a guy like Barry that's such a lying, unprincipled hypocrite that doesn't do anything but pay lip-service to doing the right thing in a given situation? Publicly he states that X will be done, then behind the scenes he doesn't do X and does the polar opposite of X and expects everyone not to notice.
In many ways, Barry is far worse than W. ever was. How? At least with W. you knew where he stood and didn't think, "Oh, that W. is just saying that, but really we all know W.'s going to do just the opposite." With Barry, you can count on him screwing you in the end. He holds out the progressive pebble in his hand and tells you to take it, but then at the last second, he quickly snatches his hand away, leaving you filled with feelings of loss, betrayal and being played for a sucker. I don't like Barry at all.
Wow! How so well-said!
Wow! How so well-said! Awesome, Mark. 5*****
The last time I checked the
The last time I checked the financial problems, banking, real estate, healthcare costs, coal mining anything else that is easy to blame the last administration on didn't just happen in the past 10 years ... These have been boiling and brewing for years and years ... Its WAY to easy in todays mindset with a nanosecond attention span to blame the "last guy". With that being said anyone expecting this clown with ZERO experience to "fix" everything in 1 year or even 4 years is getting what they deserve ... let down
-MH
Well MH, you're right...they
Well MH, you're right...they are all clowns, Obama included. So the question is, when are the real clowns, the American People, going to STOP continually voting for these evil A-holes? I'll answer my own question---from the look of it, never! 95 percent of incumbent politicians get re-elected. We'll see if this changes this Fall with the midterm elections.
We've got a system that was rigged from the beginning. We've got a two party system that leaves no room for other "third" parties. As Ralph Nader said during the 2000 election season, they are just tweedle dumb and tweedle dee. Two halves of the same entity. Both halves keep supporting the continuation of the empire. We've got over 700 military bases stationed all over this planet; sucking up money from our treasury, thereby taking resources from much needed things like fixing our infrastructure, schools, switching to a carbonless energy system, etc.
Right now, we probably have the most corrupt governments of any time, federal as well as state. We've got all our politicians on the dole. This is a time were our representational democracy is least representing the citizenry. Where we the citizens have no voice.
Will our citizens wake up and start voting in candidates from new third parties who truly will attempt to combat the control corporations have over our system and represent their constituents? I do hope so. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Then why is it that we have the tea party types, on the right, and those on the left, ready to re-elect those politicians who are responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place? Are we all insane?
Enough said.
CDA
Right,It's gonna take
Right,It's gonna take someone like Ralph Nader to fix the problems of the past 30 years of Ronnie Raygun and the Bush crime family!
And don't forget Bubba Bill
And don't forget Bubba Bill and Jimmah Cartah!
Actually Jimmah warned
Actually Jimmah warned Amuricuns about this here ingery addiction to earl way back when...don'tchaknow?
Blame to Jimmy
Blame to Jimmy Carter???LOL...you mean the same guy who made us drive 55?? The same guy who put those solar panel "thingys" on the Whitehouse,the same ones Ronnie Raygun took down~!!??
Oil was under $8/bbl in 1998...that's why the Cheney/Bush cabal had to get rid of Saddam...the US oil cartel aka OPEC couldn't control his oil production with the oil for food program...hence 9/11 and the invasion!
JCW
Barak Obamma is just a
Barak Obamma is just a better ass wipe than Bush...thats the real change ever1 voted for without knowing better > though truth be told they were all snakes.
THE GOP HAS SYSTEMATICALLY
THE GOP HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED ANY ATTEMPTS AT REGULATING ANYTHING FOR 30 YEARS...THANKS RONNIE RAYGUN..."GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM"!
Ron Reagan never put that
Ron Reagan never put that into practice. Of course government is the problem. But that was never practiced. Now we have a 6 month moratorium coming up thats going to tank the gulf economy when we already have enough economic problems already.
"The US Congress passed the
"The US Congress passed the Oil Pollution Bill of 1990, which capped liability in such accidents at $ 75 million. To make an oil company pay higher damages, Washington would have to provide proof of deliberate negligence or regulatory misconduct."
That's government regulation. Works great, don't it? If I recall CIA wing of the GOP head Bush the Elder was El Presidente at the time. Nobody (Clinton, Bush the dumber, Obama) in the following 20 years seemed to care to repeal it. Call it government health insurance for Big Oil with a $75,000,000.00 deductible. Guess who is responsible for the paying balance? That's right. Now, bend over.
Excellent! As always, a
Excellent! As always, a refreshing and poignantly delivered dose of rationality in the face of self-deception... er... self-regulation.
-JL
Trust Me! I promise to
Trust Me! I promise to voluntarily regulate myself, honest. Where else have you seen the effects of voluntary regulation, self-policing or pushover regulation?
-MF
Post new comment