why do dems hate the poor?
Posted by aaron bruce (+198) 11 years ago
we all know that barney frank and chris dodd were responsible for the housing crash...

pelosi reid are responsible for corn prices

obama is responsible for gas prices

so with that you got food, fuel, and housing. why do dems want the poor to starve, be homeless and go without travel??

remember obamas statement? "under my plan of a cap and trade system energy prices would NECESSARILY skyrocket" why all the hatred?

why all the hatred?
Top
Posted by Smiley (+853) 11 years ago
Just a question? Can we sue Faux News for severly damaging poor Aaron? He seriously needs some help, and I feel sympathy for him and his family through this obviously difficult time.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+198) 11 years ago
hey smiley, the only people that can sue is the liberals...those are talking points taken verbatum from liberals when bush j.r. was in office you dumb buckshowalter. so why do the libs now hate the poor?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 11 years ago
Watch the language, douche bag.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (4/13/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Dona Stebbins (+824) 11 years ago
Don't feed the trolls...
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2734) 11 years ago
the only people that can sue is the liberals


Is Dennis Rehberg aware of that?
Top
Posted by korky II (+614) 11 years ago
Under obumers new get out of debt program he wants to raise taxes on the rich. What about these big companies ie., GE and Exxon Mobil. Record profits, but, not one dime in taxes. Why should the people, rich or not, pay the bill to get our nation out of debt and these big companies with record profits not pay a dime ? I think congress, the white house and these big companies all use the same bed. They are all a bunch of crooks.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9297) 11 years ago
Well Korky, procreating rubes such as yourself enable this sort of horsemanure when you vote for obvious fellators of big business and the Money Party such as Dennis Rehberg, just because he's got an R next to his name and wears a cowboy hat.

IF YOU VOTED FOR REHBERG THEN YOU'VE GOT NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF.

Now then, there are certainly plenty of D's that I'd like to see DIAF (*cough*Ben Nelson*cough*Mary Landrieu*cough*Tester, some days, Baucus, most days*cough*), but the Money Party has been winning thanks to the rubes and sycophants for the last thirty years, and the best you can hope to get back from them is thumbs up while you buss their tables at the country club.

Now go read this: http://www.balloon-juice....l_question.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/13/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2734) 11 years ago
AMEN!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15076) 11 years ago
I am not sure I buy this completely, but it is interesting to contemplate. I do think that the left/right issue come from asking the wrong questions.

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two "interest groups" - I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase - have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate - and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

 Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

 The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

 Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

 PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

 The individuals' right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

 DRM and content protection undercuts the individual's ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

 Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

 The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm - yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).

What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?

In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content - YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren's concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.

But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.

Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . .


http://www.ritholtz.com/b...porations/
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago


Steal every penny of profit from the entire Fortune 500... wouldn't even bring the deficit under the $Trillion mark.

That's how out of control this government is.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+198) 11 years ago
i love u liberals, i probably donate more money to charity, donate more labor to needy individuals...i comute in a 57 mpg car, spend three months a year in the mountains....i practice what you buck showalters preach.... i had someone explain why we are so far apart. he spoke two sentences to me and it all became clear...this is what he said: GIVE A LIB A FISH AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY, TEACH A LIB TO FISH AND AND HE WILL ASK FOR MORE OF THOSE FREE FISH.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by atomicg (+1009) 11 years ago
Richard, have you ever seen "The Corporation"? It's a documentary that takes the modern corporation, examines it as a "legal entity" much like an individual and proves out a psychological diagnoses of psychopath in the process.

It's very supportive of your comment on corporations vs individuals. It's well made and informative. Offers a lot of insight into how limited liability gained traction in our legal and business functions as early as the Postbellum age and has never let go since.

I'd also recommend "The Smartest Guys In The Room" to anyone getting entangled in this subject matter. It's an R rated look at Enron. Shows how the 7th largest (correct me if that's wrong) corporation in the world turned out to be a hollow shell of debt.

Makes you wonder if a state can still revoke a corporate charter in the better interest of the public? Bet that hasn't happened in a while.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+198) 11 years ago
corporations and unions sound like the same thing to me. i wonder how much unions donate to politics.

enron was an empty shell of debt...yeah but small potatoes compared to the United States government.
Top
Posted by Gern Blansky (+17) 10 years ago
Because that is how Dems always get the gullible to vote for them. Fueling class resentments by pitting one hated group against another.

Your typical dem couldn't give a crap less about themselves getting richer, they've just got their heads stuck up the anal passage of making rich people poorer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15076) 10 years ago
Because that is how Dems always get the gullible to vote for them. Fueling class resentments by pitting one hated group against another.

Your typical dem couldn't give a crap less about themselves getting richer, they've just got their heads stuck up the anal passage of making rich people poorer.




And how is your comment not exactly the kind of class warfare you accuse democrats in engaging? The average democrat does not hate the poor anymore or any less than the average republican. They simple go about attempting to solve problems in a different manner.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 10 years ago
Only someone named Gern would be dumb enough to dig this poop back up.
Top
Posted by Gern Blansky (+17) 10 years ago
And anyone named Buck would be ignorant enough to swallow anything Osambo says.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 10 years ago
Oh, yeah...overt racism. Nice work, Gern.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (6/13/2011)]
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1290) 10 years ago
Same old same old
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9297) 10 years ago
Indeed. Why are conservatives such racists?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1910) 10 years ago
Also notice how "conservatives" like gern are constantly obsessed with anal passages.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5100) 10 years ago
Yes, Gern is likely a certain kind of pirate. Or wants to be.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1650) 10 years ago
*non-interesting trivia tidbit* follows:

Gurn BlansTON was the name that Steve Martin says he changed his name to on his "Comedy is not Pretty" album from the 70's.

FH
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 10 years ago
So we can conclude the following:

Gurn Blanston = classic comedy

Gern Blansky = Texan with internet access

I was going to call him a dumb Texan, but that would be like multiplying -7 and -9 and getting 63.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (6/14/2011)]
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1290) 10 years ago
You've got to love the name Gern, I know I do. Other than that the entire leadership of this country is one big batch of Weiners.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 10 years ago
And Boehners.
Top