Last Updated: Sep 27,2012
Dylan Ratigan Blasts U.S. Political & Banking Ties and the Partisan Hacks
Sorry, I'm at work and don't have time to look at the video. Please forgive my OT question, but what smarphone do you have? Tia.
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 ?
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.
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.
Michele Bachmann’s Christian Nationalist Revisionist History (Video) | Disinformation
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.
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.
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
Interesting. I was very active in said thread and don't remember that being the conclusion.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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?
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.
O.J. proved conclusively (as have many other criminals) that GREEN is the only color that matters.
To get back on track:
From the most respected and financially successful men in the US:
Warren Buffet: Stop Coddling Billionaires
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
I mangle syntax, does that count ?
I'm a new kid on the block but I'll risk this...
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?
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 ?
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.
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
Separate names with a comma.