No, I'm not afraid I'm going to lose control and shove someone unnecessarily. I haven't "assaulted" anyone since I was twelve.

What I'm afraid of is being in the proximity of people who would "absolutely file assault charges" for something where nobody was really hurt and the guy has already paid the price of looking like a complete asshole in front of the whole world. You would "absoultely" press the issue and try to sic the government on him. Why? Justice? Get fucked.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^budzos:
People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.


Is the fear of being sued for shoving people or the choice of not attending things where you may be offended/irritated/whatever and not being able to shove someone?
Hell you can't even put your hands on someone like that when they are on your own property for something as simple as wearing a mascot outfit and trying to hand you something...well NORMAL people can't get away with it at least.
I'd absolutely file assault charges against him if he put his hands on me or my kid (if I had kids) like that. He wouldn't put up with me going out and shoving his teenage kids....double standards are fun.

>> ^budzos:

People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.



Is the fear of being sued for shoving people or the choice of not attending things where you may be offended/irritated/whatever and not being able to shove someone?

Hell you can't even put your hands on someone like that when they are on your own property for something as simple as wearing a mascot outfit and trying to hand you something...well NORMAL people can't get away with it at least.

I'd absolutely file assault charges against him if he put his hands on me or my kid (if I had kids) like that. He wouldn't put up with me going out and shoving his teenage kids....double standards are fun.

People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.

Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.

@vaire2ube tell you what, hand over the overwhelming power government gave to bankers to someone else, say farmers, workers, teachers, nuns, it doesn't matter, it will be abused eventually and social injustice will happen in a large scale. Will you be hating on nuns too for screwing up the country's finances?

You don't resent corporations or the power they earned. Like you said, they're not inherently evil. You resent the power corporations don't deserve that they can only get from government.

Why are bankers greedy? Because greed and fear of loss balance each other out, it's like that for every human being. Bankers don't fear loss because they know they can always get bailed out, so their greed goes rampant.

If a government agency gave you a "license to kill" with no repercussions whatsoever, pretty soon you'd be offing people left and right like a sociopath too (mostly bankers and CEOs, right? ).

Regulations are crafted by big corporations that lobby government. So why would you resort to the problem to supply the solution?

I agree that government is the solution, the solution being "protect our freedoms". Because the minute they do things like give a central bank monopoly over the money supply, that's taking away our freedoms and handing it over in the form of unjust power to some institution.

BTW, I'm sure GlaxoSmithKline isn't going for the "badass" reputation of killing people. Three billion seems like a pretty steep fine, no matter how much money they're making.

@dystopianfuturetoday the distinction is as clear as day:

- crony capitalism is when government has a lot of power over the economy and constantly meddles with how people do business. So government becomes part of doing business, specially for big corporations, they can afford to overregulate the market and discourage smaller competitors.

- Free market is when government has very limited power over the economy, preferably not even having a central bank, so corporations don't bother associating with government, there's no power there, nothing to gain from it.

Saying free markets eventually degrade into chaos and violence is like saying, "freedom of religion will lead humanity into an era of endless holy wars".

I found it amusing when you said "a system based on absolute competition", a typically biased socialist characterization of capitalism. You won't ever find in the history of humanity a social system that fosters more cooperation than capitalism. Markets are comprised mostly of people exchanging lots of goods and services with each other, and there is nothing more cooperative than free trade. Competition is not the rule of capitalism, it's a disparity: when there are too many options, there is competition for cooperation.

P.S: I ain't fallin' for your trollin'!

>> ^VoodooV:

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue
If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.
I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.
Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.
We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy


Correct step, but you're not accounting for folks who hire onto some big corporation or what not after their public service term. Government regulatory bodies are notorious for this, but so are Congress or their staffers. You can't really deny them future employment, but there is obvious alignment and abuse of that taking place throughout government. Taking lobby dollars away might make it harder for them to maintain a relationship, but they will work out it by employing their family members with fat salaries or other means.


And then once they get to working for the company, they have a line into the relationships created during their terms. While it'd still be lobbying, it'd just end up being favors....a less quantifiable currency.

>> ^kymbos:

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...
While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites
Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?
While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I know what I'm doing is wrong, and I know that I should be providing those who make the entertainment money. And as I said, I do with movies... TV not so much, because it's that thing that I don't have much interest in re-watching shows. (Except Deadwood, we bought all of that on DVD, because you can watch that over and over and get things you missed in the beautiful cussing the first time ) So, there, yes I have a problem. A show like Fringe. I think that's an awesome show, looks like it doesn't have much life left in it, could do with the support, but what can I do realistically? I can't add to its ratings at all as I'm not a family with one of the rating boxes (one of my friends was for a while, was fun to intentionally watch 'good' tv to try to boost ratings ), if I bought the show on DVD it'd really be a symbolic gesture on my part where I'd end up with a bunch of DVDs I'll never watch.

Now, if they made the remaining episodes of it available worldwide for a small subscription fee (and hey, open up the back catalogue too so people can catch up), then I'd stop torrenting it and use the legal downloads (assuming they aren't DRM'd all up the butt).

So yes, I know that torrenting isn't 'right', but I try to do the right thing by the work I like. But I have issues with me doing it, and would like to be provided another avenue to do it legally where I can support the creators I like (without having to pay for crap I don't like). @Ryjkyj seems to believe he's actually in the right, and that's what gets my goat. People who seem to think you're only producing something if you can hold it or touch it. That's such utter rubbish.

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...

While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites

Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?

While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.

What the hell, Further proof that there are people that just don't get it.

I don't know if this is written by Tom Clancy, Ubisoft, or some outside party but this is completely *WTF

Since when did those of us who are against big corporations become the terrorists?

I don't like the way he pronounces patents.

Beyond that, we in the US already have the majority of this on us already. I think we lack the ISP policing to such a degree that other nations might. But patented seeds? Generic drugs being denied to some degree? We got that in the US. Generic drugs aren't quite as screwed up as patented seeds and how the big corporations rape people in courts over them, but non-generic drug (and maybe some generics) pricing in the US is outrageous in comparison to other countries.

yeah, he definitely loves big corporations.

What's the point of getting money outta politics if Wall Street is still fueled by free money and keeps sending jobs overseas and wealth to the 1% ?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.

Corporate Media Admit They Censor Candidates Who Challenge the Status Quo:
Preface: Liberals shouldn't ignore the media's censoring of Ron Paul's popularity in straw polls because he's "on the right". Many progressive candidates have been shut out of political races by the big corporate media.

Reuters Edits Iowa Poll Reality According to Globalist Agenda:
Often cited as a reliable, reputable news source, Reuters is in actuality nothing more than another den of duplicity bought and paid for by the corporate financiers ruling/ruining Western civilization. Their latest article titled, "Bachmann and Perry - a beautiful 2012 rivalry" sidelines reality according to the globalist script so soundly you can almost hear the noses of Reuters editors' growing. The GOP Iowa debate saw Ron Paul annihilate the competition with counts showing him as far as three times further ahead of the next runner-up Newt Gingrich. However, the final tally of the Iowa straw poll saw establishment footstool Michele Bachmann eke out Ron Paul by a mere 152 votes. Despite the closeness of the race and the immense political ramifications of a candidate labeled by the corporate media as part of "fringe politics" finishing neck-to-neck with the insincere Bachmann, Reuters decided to write about Rick Perry's insignificant, meaningless, though establishment approved, entry into the GOP 2012 race instead. Not a single mention of Ron Paul was made.

@dystopianfuturetoday, are these news outlets also part of the big corporations you claim "inform my politics"? Looks like the corporations don't much care for Libertarianism even when mixed with a folksy dose of Conservatism. They do love them some status quo like Romney, Bachmann and, oh yeah, even Obama gets his day in the sun.

In case you're foggy what I mean, let me cite that for you.