Excellent, accurate rant. Ignore the bickering bimbos.
"Money in politics is the root of all political evil. It is corruption at its worst. And until we step up and kick that out of the park it's going to be the same system all the way."
..."Money in politics is the root of all political evil. It is corruption at its worst. And until we step up and kick that out of the park it's going to be the same system all the way."
Maybe we should address why all this money is being poured into politics and see if we can place disincentives to the worst aspects.
There are free speech issues to consider. Use models from disarmament agreements, but keep in mind, Trust, but verify rule ?
Last edited by Steven58; August 12th, 2011 at 04:40 PM.
Reason: Clean up format
The Supremes have enshrined into law two principles upon which the whole house of cards seems to be built.
1) "money is speech" (the antithesis of free speech)
2) "corporations are people" (i.e. have constitutional rights)
When the rule of law has been subverted, the very principles on which this country was found have been compromised. In my view it is time for a new Declaration of Independence, which the old one seemingly gives us the right to implement.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to noah way For This Useful Post:
... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Don't believe it's that bad, yet. Found another interesting video from the same source you cited earlier. I found it interesting that Ponzi schemers use political donations to further their schemes.
"Money in politics is the root of all political evil. It is corruption at its worst. And until we step up and kick that out of the park it's going to be the same system all the way."
There is more than one kind of corruption in American society and politics. Some of it is on a judicial level. We've all seen this sort of thing:
Are we taking it for granted? We all know about it.
... There is more than one kind of corruption in American society and politics. ...
It's the homeless man's fault. He didn't steal enough to redistribute to the right folks. To add insult to injury, he left money on the table. He set a bad example to the community. I can see why the judge threw the book at him.
Sincerely yours
Al Capone
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
weve already discussed this case in another thread........ and quickly came to the conclusion that the rich white guy with no prior record clearly deserved a much stiffer sentence than the poor black guy with a prior record thicker than your computer tower........ FFS
weve already discussed this case in another thread........ and quickly came to the conclusion that the rich white guy with no prior record clearly deserved a much stiffer sentence than the poor black guy with a prior record thicker than your computer tower........ FFS
I think the disparity in sentencing has more to do with the amount of money involved and the contrition on the part of the person who stole the $100. The races of the two people are not a consideration at all; reverse them, same tragic irony.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frisco For This Useful Post:
correct....... it has everything to do with the money involved.......... not a single thing to do with the fact that the CEO had never gotten so much as a parking meter ticket......... the other guy has been in and out of jail with numerous felony convictions on his record....... nothing at all
correct....... it has everything to do with the money involved.......... not a single thing to do with the fact that the CEO had never gotten so much as a parking meter ticket......... the other guy has been in and out of jail with numerous felony convictions on his record....... nothing at all
On a scale of 10:
My trust of CEO (who victimized tens of thousands of people..at once) = 0
My trust of homeless guy (who may have victimized a dozen people over the course of his life) = 5 or so.
And I feel like I'm being tough on the homeless guy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frisco For This Useful Post:
I guess it all depends on what level of victimization or your definition of victimization that youre willing to accept?
2 different issues at work here.......
first the CEO regardless of how much disparity you want to associate with his white collar crime....... committed just that a white collar crime ...... the penalties which could not exceed 6 years...... he got 3
the known criminal.... who has a long record of crime... as I recall from going through this before.... some of them violent.........who this time committed another violent crime.... pretended to have a gun in order to rob a bank...... regardless of how much money he took....... received 15 years...... which btw is less than what he could have and should have received for this crime
so bare in mind the nature of the crimes and previous records
now if you want to argue the CEO should have received a harsher penalty..... I will be first on board to agree with you....... however I didnt create the law for white collar crimes...... as I recall it was a democrat (looking out for the little guys and poor people) who wrote that one....... but to argue about the disparity while using 2 PEOPLE who got a lesser sentence than they deserved as an example is ludicrous.... IMO theres really no need to have a comparative figure to make the CEO penalty outrageous........ all you do is hurt the cause and lessen the effect by bringing in a piece of trash as an example to argue in favor of law reforms
second the penalty for bank robbery (both armed or unarmed) were not prescribed when poor black people started robbing banks....... this was not some special extreme penalty for him.... these penalties were put in place long before this guy was even born...... and long before the first poor black man ever robbed a bank......... this guy received far less than the maximum penalty and got off quite easy........ hes a known criminal who pretended to have a gun with the intent to threaten someone and stole money to get drunk........ despite the fact that he felt bad after the fact he should have sentenced to life
we can cherry pick court cases all day long and say it was because one guy was rich and one guy was poor.....
Last edited by Frisco; August 13th, 2011 at 03:59 PM.
Reason: removed revolting analogy
however I didnt create the law for white collar crimes...... as I recall it was a democrat (looking out for the little guys and poor people) who wrote that one
Got a source? No, of course not.
It's an obvious lie simply because laws don't get passed by a single politician. Never, ever miss a chance to slander the opposition party.
correct....... it has everything to do with the money involved.......... not a single thing to do with the fact that the CEO had never gotten so much as a parking meter ticket......... the other guy has been in and out of jail with numerous felony convictions on his record....... nothing at all
It appears to me that the CEO's crimes were over a period of time, so if the CEO could have been convicted at the time of each crime then I contend the record of the CEO would surpass that of the homeless man.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
It appears to me that the CEO's crimes were over a period of time, so if the CEO could have been convicted at the time of each crime then I contend the record of the CEO would surpass that of the homeless man.
That's some lawyer language twisting right there! You wouldn't happen to be one would you?
It appears to me that the CEO's crimes were over a period of time, so if the CEO could have been convicted at the time of each crime then I contend the record of the CEO would surpass that of the homeless man.
Just think of how many crimes the homeless man had commited and never caught? You think everytime the guy committed a crime he was arrested? The homeless man got a stiffer sentence because of his priors. I bet you look for a guy that only crime he ever committed was robbing a bank. I bet his sentence would be less than your homeless guy.
The homeless guy was contrite and basically turned himself in, pleading guilty.
The CEO was caught then brought out his big gun attorneys and fought tooth and nail until he was convicted, fought some more for a reduced sentence and was awarded that after apologizing to the sentencing judge "for letting down the community and his family," even though he and the community expressed surprise at the 40 month length of the sentence.
Creepy guy and a low life of a boss.. "Allen had subordinates who were reporting the problems to Allen, but Allen left them to fend for themselves."
At the very least, the sad truth is the homeless man learned his lesson and is a testament to others. If you rob a bank, and have priors, do NOT do the "right thing" and turn yourself in because you are feeling remorseful. It will certainly end poorly for you.
Warren Buffet took a strong stance against tax breaks for the super-rich in an op-ed published in The New York Times Sunday, noting that “While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.”
Buffet made no qualms about his tax obligations, noting that he paid $6,938,744 in federal taxes last year, which was 17.4% of his taxable income. He wrote that of the 20 people in his office, tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41%, and averaged 36%.
Buffet was blunt: “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
On the other side of the ocean, the corporate financial complex responds through their mouthpiece at the World Bank:
On the US, Zoellick said it was not fears that the world's biggest economy faced an imminent problem, but "frankly that markets are used to the United States playing a key role in the economic system and leadership".
He said the US government needed to extend cuts from discretionary spending to programmes such as social security.
The corporate financial complex is multinational and global, which is why we are seeing the same economic conditions in various places around the world ranging from Europe to South America to the US. It's called slash and burn economics.
The Following User Says Thank You to noah way For This Useful Post:
Two of America's most successful exports, it's culture and the reality of personal indebtedness. The latter to corporate holdings. Could be a recipe for some kind of success but what is success is there when all slash and burn has been slashed and burnt?
Just think of how many crimes the homeless man had commited and never caught? You think everytime the guy committed a crime he was arrested? The homeless man got a stiffer sentence because of his priors. I bet you look for a guy that only crime he ever committed was robbing a bank. I bet his sentence would be less than your homeless guy.
I believe we are discussing the crimes that both were caught at, the difference being the timing of being caught.
I don't know how many crimes the each were not caught at. Do you ?
Two of America's most successful exports, it's culture and the reality of personal indebtedness. The latter to corporate holdings. Could be a recipe for some kind of success but what is success is there when all slash and burn has been slashed and burnt?
Culture of consumption and debt as a means of leverage, both elements of financial greed. The history of slash and burn is readily evident in a long string of scandals ranging from the S&L Scandal to ENRON and other corporate scandals to the tech bubble, housing bubble and following mortgage crisis (which bailed deregulated banks out of the collapse of the housing bubble).
Typically, when one sector has been destroyed, vulture capitalists turn to another and pick it clean. The Greek financial crisis is largely the result of specualtion and the same kind of credit default swaps that caused the mortgage crisis in the US. These same techniques are being used against other economies including Ireland and Italy to generate financial profit at any cost.
The idea that eventually they will run out of things to destroy in their quest for profit apparently hasn't crossed the minds of those engaged in such pursuits.
The Following User Says Thank You to noah way For This Useful Post:
Regarding the money in politics, I personally believe corporate and large donations should be ILLEGAL.
They have undermined millions of Americans quality of life, and they are also a major factor regarding the financial collapse
Regarding the Eurozone crises, its lunacy, and I reckon that a a few hundred people are deliberately worsening the situation for their on benefit, while the market goes crazy.
Greece would be the only country liable to default in a sensible market. Yet the markets are acting as if all the PIIGS countries will default. Its like they forget they are developed countries with ECB funding available
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
The Following User Says Thank You to ElasticNinja For This Useful Post:
Regarding the money in politics, I personally believe corporate and large donations should be ILLEGAL.
They have undermined millions of Americans quality of life, and they are also a major factor regarding the financial collapse
Culture of consumption and debt as a means of leverage, both elements of financial greed. ...
As FDR’s Fed chairman Marriner S. Eccles explained:
As in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.
Culture of consumption and debt as a means of leverage, both elements of financial greed. The history of slash and burn is readily evident in a long string of scandals ranging from the S&L Scandal to ENRON and other corporate scandals to the tech bubble, housing bubble and following mortgage crisis (which bailed deregulated banks out of the collapse of the housing bubble).
Typically, when one sector has been destroyed, vulture capitalists turn to another and pick it clean. The Greek financial crisis is largely the result of specualtion and the same kind of credit default swaps that caused the mortgage crisis in the US. These same techniques are being used against other economies including Ireland and Italy to generate financial profit at any cost.
The idea that eventually they will run out of things to destroy in their quest for profit apparently hasn't crossed the minds of those engaged in such pursuits.
"MATT TAIBBI: Yes, there's a tax deduction for all that borrowed money. So, when Mitt Romney or Bain Capital, when they want to go take over a company like KB Toys and they borrow $300 million to do it, and that new debt becomes the debt of KB Toys, when KB pays the debt service, the monthly service on that debt, that service is deductible. And if that were not true, if they did not have that deduction, these deals would not be economically feasible. They wouldn't be possible. I spoke to one former regulator from the SEC, who worked both in the SEC and as an accountant at a Big Four accounting firm, and he reviewed a number of these deals in both a public and private capacity. And he said, without that deduction, he's never seen a deal that would have been economically-a private equity deal that would have been economically feasible. So, this entire business model depends upon a tax break."
weve already discussed this case in another thread........ and quickly came to the conclusion that the rich white guy with no prior record clearly deserved a much stiffer sentence than the poor black guy with a prior record thicker than your computer tower........ FFS
Why does it have to be a poor black guy with a prior record thicker than your computer tower? Others in this country don't have a prior record thicker than your computer tower?
Indian Land Grab
Right from the very start the European settlers were begging their British king to destroy the “savages” faster than he already was. It was one of the reasons they listed in their Declaration of Independence that caused them to want to SEPARATE from England.
Dawes Act
Massachusetts congressman Henry L. Dawes drafted federal legislation enacted in 1887 which ordered the “registering” of Indians so that they could receive an allotment of their own land! But to get on the “Dawes Rolls,” Native Americans had to anglicize their names. This allowed White officials to slip the names of their relatives and friends onto the Dawes Rolls and reap millions of acres of land.
Jim Crow Laws
The so-called Jim Crow laws were simply reconstituted Slave Laws and they applied throughout America, in the South and North. Their aim was not to keep Blacks from “White” drinking fountains and toilets, or even to stop them from breaking the law—but to keep Blacks from accumulating property, starting businesses, engaging in trade and commerce, and establishing an independent economic base and to force them back to the cotton plantations. Whites, having “legally” eliminated all competition from the most productive people on earth, benefitted immensely from these repressive American racial restrictions.
Being a team player can be highly profitable, of course those that whine about it are just jealous of not being fit to be members of the team. Not Romney's fault that these whiners didn't choose their parents wisely.
U.S. District Judge Edward Harrington said in a decision on Friday that the public has the right to see a new complaint filed as part of a class-action antitrust lawsuit that claims Bain Capital and 10 other private equity firms colluded with one another to keep the costs of leveraged buyouts low. The plaintiffs recently filed another complaint with new information, but that complaint has not yet been made public because of opposition from Bain Capital lawyers, who say doing so could hurt the company's business because of increased scrutiny during the election news cycle.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Being a team player can be highly profitable, of course those that whine about it are just jealous of not being fit to be members of the team. Not Romney's fault that these whiners didn't choose their parents wisely.
U.S. District Judge Edward Harrington said in a decision on Friday that the public has the right to see a new complaint filed as part of a class-action antitrust lawsuit that claims Bain Capital and 10 other private equity firms colluded with one another to keep the costs of leveraged buyouts low. The plaintiffs recently filed another complaint with new information, but that complaint has not yet been made public because of opposition from Bain Capital lawyers, who say doing so could hurt the company's business because of increased scrutiny during the election news cycle.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Romney wasn't involved with Bain at the time this alleged incident occurred. Let's blame him anyway though. We should all be held responsible for things our companies do after we leave them.
"Romney's and Bain's lawyers say he was not involved in the company at the time of the deals covered by the lawsuit." Yep that is what is claimed. Complaint has not been made public, but the lawyers don't want it made public because of the "election news cycle."
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
The article doesn't say exactly when the incident in question took place now that I look at it more in depth. You'd think that would be in there since when Romney left Bain is what makes a difference in whether this is a news story or not.
The article doesn't say exactly when the incident in question took place now that I look at it more in depth. You'd think that would be in there since when Romney left Bain is what makes a difference in whether this is a news story or not.
Well since complaint isn't public, hard to know. It's interesting Bain lawyers are attempting to suppress complaint because of "election news cycle".
Lawsuits are public records, so why cite "election news cycle" as a reason to suppress if Romney wasn't involved. Bain lawyers can't win on public disclosure, so an attempt to delay disclosure till after the election ?
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Bain lawyers know that even if it came out that it happened during a time that Romney wasn't involved with Bain he would still get blamed for it by the Obama campaign.
Bain lawyers know that even if it came out that it happened during a time that Romney wasn't involved with Bain he would still get blamed for it by the Obama campaign.
Supposedly Romney is no longer involved in Bain management, so why should Bain lawyers object ? This is a court of law, Obama can blame away to his hearts content.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Supposedly Romney is no longer involved in Bain management, so why should Bain lawyers object ? This is a court of law, Obama can blame away to his hearts content.
But you and other's like you will defend Obama's accusations.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Which has nothing to do with making the class action anti-trust complaint public. Obama is not a party to the class action lawsuit.
Here's the thing.
Complaint is made public.
Let's say it's from a time after Romney left Bain in 1999. Obama backers will still blame Romney for it.
Romney will deny it claiming he wasn't with the firm with the time and Obama backers will label him a liar.
Romney loses.
You realize Romney will get blamed for it whether he's involved or not right?
Romney was the CEO till at least 2002. He still derives a great deal of income from the company. Again, this is a court case, so if he gets blamed or not is not relevant.
2Likes
extraction of wealth from US
You wouldn't happen to be one would you?
