搜索结果: *

Merry giftmas to all

Wheem 说:

Smoketh 说:

I mean, of all these billion dollar business such as banks, insurance companies, oil companies, etc, most of which use, what many people would call, illegitimate business practices (preexisting conditions anyone?), cut corners, lobby like crazy, and try to squeeze as much money out of each of their customers while buying out the rest of the market competition. None of those people would be capable of buying the influence of politicians on the local, state, or federal level to help them out?

点击展开...

1) Please learn what INSURANCE really is before you complain about preexisting conditions. You don't call up Geico or Allstate after your car gets totaled; likewise, you can't expect Blue Cross to take you on at the same price as healthy people when you already have a serious health problem. Preexisting conditions may necessitate health care, but at that point it's a little late for health insurance.

2) Yes, many businesses seek to gain political influence and will continue to do so as long as the government holds significant power over the economy. And it's worth reiterating the fact that "campaign finance reform" will not keep corporate money out of politics, but may stop private (non-profit) groups from releasing a documentary about a particular candidate (see Citizens United).

Still, this is not the same thing as "buying elections" as you had previously alleged.

点击展开...

1. Yes there is reason for it, but it is undoubtedly abused and many people have died because of some ridiculous claim about a preexisting condition.

2. So you'll admit that corporations and people with power seek to gain political influence (in other words BUY political influence) but not buy elections? They give millions to candidates who already favor them, or candidates they "convinced" to favor them. It's known that the more money you have in your campaign the better chance to win. It's known there are biased news organization that favor certain candidates. It's known people have bought elections, votes, judges, and politicians in the past all over the country. It's known millions are spent on advertisements that basically lie. It's known, even in the past election cycle, that dead people have been registered to vote and lots of homeless people have been registered to vote.

But no, elections aren't bought, they are 100% by the people and for the people *brain explodes with sarcasm overload*

BFG 9000

I used to like this band/brand/website/forum/car/town/coffee shop/country better, now it's weird and dumb.

You can look at it as humanitarian, relieving Iraq of Saddam and his regime and relieving the Afghanni people from the Taliban. But, how many people have to die before it stops being humanitarian? Would it be better for a person to be alive in an oppressive country or dead in a "free" one, and I'd say free is very debatable.

I don't get, it so either 1) Thank you, or 2) **** you buddy!

Shatari 说:

Smoketh 说:

I'd expect actual news organizations to cover protests instead of celebrities

点击展开...

Again, this is a simple matter of capitalism. Celebrities are a reliable seller, war protests went out with the last president. If you think that it needs to change then start your own media corp. Why should they risk their investments when you could do it instead?

点击展开...

If we lived in the era of cowboys and small towns I'd seriously consider making my own news source but in today's world I'd rather support the minority of those that do it well and try to get the majority to change.

edit:

"Hey, that's what you get without the state run media, but noooooooo, people don't like that. Jeez louise, sure, you kind somewhat "slanted" news, but at least you get the news! "

点击展开...

I see your point but there is nothing wrong with criticizing the media as it is today even though it may be better than other alternatives.

edit2 cause I forgot to reply:

"Let me see ... College students generally require some form of intelligence, whereas intelligence tends to be a liability in a solider?"

点击展开...

Well, I see what you are saying and I misspoke earlier, If the new's were to cover things that people consider important, and left the entertainment aspect to the entertainment shows, then both would be covered as I think they should be.  But ratings, blah blah, lets lie/be biased  instead to get more money!

Edit: sorda fixed my horrible formatting.

kiarj 说:

Do you really expect "the news" to cover every protest? If so, you may want to panic a bit, there's a college picket that happened a few days ago and I didn't see it on CNN.

点击展开...

I'd expect actual news organizations to cover protests instead of celebrities, but we don't have actual news organizations. Also, I don't see how a college picket can be compared to military veterans + (copy/pasted)RAY MCGOVERN, FMR. CIA ANALYST, and DANIEL ELLSBERG, FMR. MILITARY ANALYST, chaining themselves to the white house fence. Plus, mass arrests of over 100 people.

ealabor 说:

Its not corporations mate, it's politics, and it's ratings... both intertwined in news, as either sides cater to their audience

点击展开...

Well, the way I see it there are lots of people making money off the war in various ways so I could definitely see other corporate interests as well as political interests trying to halt coverage. But I see your point and mostly agree with it, I should have worded my argument better I think.

Well, they'd be more effective if the media covered them, since it would influence voter opinion (edit: And ya know, just to inform people of news that isn't about celebrities). Especially considering who the protests consist of. But generally, I'd agree with you that most protests are worthless, namely the kind where you get a permit and stand on the sidewalk with catchy signs. Going in front of the Whitehouse and chaining yourself to the fence... well that's another story.

Veterans are hippies?

I mean, of all these billion dollar business such as banks, insurance companies, oil companies, etc, most of which use, what many people would call, illegitimate business practices (preexisting conditions anyone?), cut corners, lobby like crazy, and try to squeeze as much money out of each of their customers while buying out the rest of the market competition. None of those people would be capable of buying the influence of politicians on the local, state, or federal level to help them out?

I mean if a bunch of gangsters 50-20 years ago were able to do it constantly in many parts of the country. You don't think billionaires and huge mega corporations are capably of the same feat today? I am not saying the whole bs that was posted earlier about corporations being evil, its just an obvious statement to say politicians are being bought and influenced by people with money and power. In every government everywhere this occurs.

Organized crime never ever bought politicians...  And no organized crime exists now...    uhg. 

*waits for herp derp Tony Soprano response*


@ next comment: Billions and billions taken from tax payers after billions and billions were stolen from the public after influencing laws/politicians so they can legally do so. Nahhhh theres no organized crime, just lol at it.

"You know, I keep seeing this claim made...but I've yet to find a rich guy that was offering to pay me money to vote a certain way."

Even though that wasn't what I was talking about, you are using your own experience in a country of ~300,000,000 people to say a claim that you repeatedly see over and over is untrue. Bravo.

"Oh wait, you mean that rich people and the EVIL EVIL EVIL!!1!1!!1! corporation..."

ya... no point.

Get your mexican house keeper to help you out so at least she can get the trickle down everyone is waiting for.

Lol, keep stroking your ****.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html  first google search.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

And that sizable middle class is shrinking rapidly.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus 说:

Or, you know, if a large number of the average joes donate a average amount of money, via a easy to use system, like... the internet, then they can still influence a campaign. Whadda you know!?

点击展开...

HAH! Just google any web page that shows the distribution of wealth in America and you will see that's not true. And good luck getting a large amount of struggling workers to donate money to one campaign.

Because without limits the rich get to choose who the most powerful candidates are while everyone else gets to vote for the people that the rich already elected with money.

Now corporations (since they are now "people") get to donate even more money or threaten candidates with not donating a sickening amount of money if they don't get their way, etc. The whole process is such a joke, and meanwhile most people bicker between which of the 2 parties are better even though they are both corrupt pieces of ****... but I digress.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus 说:

Smoketh 说:

You shoulda added another option about pandering to the wealthy so they can continue bribing/buying elections.

点击展开...

Everyone knows I looooooooooooove buying elections. Because we don't have any sort of safeguards against that. Nope.

点击展开...

Yes I was talking specifically about you. I wasn't talking about the hundreds of millions that go into campaigns and to our "representatives" after they are elected by people trying to get what they want. And, I wasn't talking about how corporations are now people and can donate all they want to campaigns, nope, talking about you.

And unemployment benefits already ended for a ****ton of people, even though there are no jobs for them to get, but im suuuuure the money will eventually trickle down to them right??