@NetRunner Err, so what was the point of posting a video that bashes the GOP for taking lobbyist money for supporting a "risky, dirty pipeline" if you yourself support the pipeline?

answer that for me and i'll respond to your other points

Gingrich should also be in jail right about now, or at least under FBI investigation due to the fact he was an unregistered lobbyist:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-lies-about-his-lobbyist-past/

http://crew.3cdn.net/3264278372ee12f31d_ifm6b524i.pdf

Ok here's some of my ideas. The first thought of course is that there needs to be a revolution. But what would that achieve - the people that have the money and the power would still be there to influence the new Government. So the only way to achieve real change (not ObamaChange) is to get rid of the people making this mess and also stop the mechanisms that allow it to happen. So serious thought needs to go into listing all the major ways by which corruption is occurring and may occur (legal and non-legal) and then even more serious thought needs to go into better alternatives or proposals. This list of changes then needs to be put forward and if the changes are not made by the existing Govt., then the people need to demand that the Govt. steps down and be replaced by one that will make the changes. Until people are willing to put their lives on the line for this, things will just continue to escalate downwards.

In my opinion the first change that needs to happen is with the media. All of these millions and billions of dollars that get raised/spent to fund campaigns have one major purpose - to buy time with the media outlets to spread a message. Staggering sums of money are being given to mainstream media outlets by the GOP/Dems to spread there propaganda, how on earth can we expect those same media outlets to provide honest coverage of events when they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars from people that don't want honest coverage. So no matter what happens in terms of election funding, the first and most important step is to break this connection between political parties and media channels so there can be honest rather than 'balanced' reporting.

So of course, the next major change that needs to happen is to switch to a publicly funded election system.

Then other issues/resolutions should include at the very least:
Lobbyist influence : An outright ban on lobbyists making donations
Lack of accountability : There needs to be a direct link between what people vote for and what is delivered, i.e. the platform that a candidate runs on cannot be changed or watered down once they take office.
Corrupting influence of power : There needs to be a better way of restricting the time groups or individuals can stay in power/office.
Environmental degradation : Environmental laws need to be improved and updated with assistance from experts, scientists and community members.

Also, one issue that is close to my heart, but others may find silly is the issue of advertising. Advertising has allowed for the widespread popularity and adoption of fast food. The fast food industry needs to be looked at in a similar way as the smoking industry, and the costs of advertising for a fast food business need to matched by the public health cost that the business will have on the population at large. So in other words, advertising for Mickey D's, Wendy's and other chains that sell rubbish needs to become prohibitively expensive, because the damage they are causing to the people in the way of obesity, diabetes etc is of epic proportions. This approach should really be applied to most aspects of industry, so for example the oil and gas industry provide an energy dense product, which by comparison to other forms of energy is quite efficient - however if the cost to the environment is taken into account, it becomes less attractive, so I think more thought needs to go into sustainability in policy making.

Anyway, that's just a couple of examples, my main point is that a systematic look at corruption in the system needs to be completed and documented and then the well thought out and logical changes need to be implemented. I mean, protesting individual issues is good, and sometimes it even works, e.g. with the SOPA 'win' and the Keystone XL 'win', but in the long term it's just not enough to have anything but a delaying effect.

I've been saying this for years. Double the length of each term across the board and limit them to one term.

1. Need time to learn the job -- and it is a job
2. Zero time spent campaigning for re-election
3. Zero influence by lobbyists looking to buy their way into legislation
4. Most important -- will reduce the number of bad votes made because of kowtowing to the uninformed electorate. I firmly believe that the vote was so lopsided on the Iraq invasion because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. Those few voices calling for reason were brave souls. I don't believe they were alone in knowing it was wrong -- but some of the others were afraid of their electorate. Many many votes go that way.
5. Ability to recall/impeach if really bad/unethical at it.


>> ^deathcow:

What if we booted them out, every damn one of them. What if the term limit was ONE term until someone made a positive change.

The DNS control mechanism of implementing SOPA and/or PIPA policies needs to get some more full explanation to Joe Public. Everything that the Content groups, the MPAAs and RIAAs etc. have done has been fatally flawed in that it can at best delay casual piracy, and usually even that is circumvented almost instantaneously. From what I can see, policing DNS would do no better than their other historical efforts in that regard.

This guy mentions that you can still type in an IP address and get to an infringing site. Maybe I am wrong or don't understand the full situation, but I would go a step further and say that this practice would simply result in US-based DNS servers being immediately replaced by DNS providers in other nations that fail to tow the SOPA/PIPA line. Joe User would get a quick walkthrough of changing his DNS provider through router or software settings, everybody would scramble for a brief period of time, and then the "sanctions" could be fairly safely ignored.

When the *AA's realize that the legislation they purchased with massive "campaign contributions" has no teeth, they would probably push (as in, push more dollars into the hands of lobbyists) for legal penalties to infringing sites beyond being de-listed from (US-based) DNS. If *that* were to actually happen also, it would simply chase ALL internet hosting outside of the US. The US could threaten trade sanctions or whatever against countries that turn a blind eye to infringing, but there would be so much of it going on that everyone could just balk at it and we'd be blowing a whole lot of hot air with jack behind it.

I think that the mainstream media needs a somebody with the balls to stand up and say that the cat is out of the bag on "protecting" Intellectual Property. For better or worse, it just isn't going to happen. The first group that accepts that and moves towards some new model is going to be way ahead of the curve in comparison to these dinosaurs that are trying to stitch a broken balloon together with needle and thread.

If everyone who thinks the current system is broken just withdraws from the process entirely, then surely nothing changes... well unless you get the armed forces on-side, but then things get really ugly.

Wouldn't it be better to choose your candidates (remember you have many representatives, not just one president) and then make sure they actually represent your views? Otherwise you are just leaving the special interest groups and lobbyists as the only people talking to them.

Or am I missing something here?
>> ^artician:

I wish he'd just come out and endorse someone else, or give an honest alternative solution. The system is fucked, the country is fucked. Even if Paul is the most racist piece of shit in the US, can you seriously name an alternative for office that will fix anything in the country?
Even if information came to light about the guy raping his own grandmother, the only other alternative for any serious change for the US is to not vote at all, and to continue to protest. I seriously don't know what to make of any of it. There really are no other options.
(Would love to hear some!)

I think one thing not mentioned yet is that the positive things Ron Paul is promising were already promised by the current president (to an extent):

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

Yes, the last troops did come home last December, however an enormous private security presence remains - up to 20,000 people costing America ~$3.5 billion a year.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/12/18/iraq-war-us-troops-are-out-but-blackwater-and-halliburton-will-stay/

...and America is expanding it's wars and troop presence in other countries, e.g. in the Asia Pacific, including here in Australia (FU), and trying to escalate the situation with Iran.

So the war has morphed into something else, and the spirit of his statement has been broken, you don't promise to end wars if you plan on just starting others somewhere else.

He also made plenty of other promises, for example @MonkeySpank about stopping corporate lobbying:
“You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government – we do. And we are here to take it back.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)

Here's some more broken promises of his:
http://www.politisite.com/2012/01/05/obamas-failed-promises/

So the point? They are both politicians, they can say whatever they want and continue to do the exact opposite, all they have to worry about is a few people sleeping in a park, there is absolutely no accountability in Washington. Obama got far closer to highlighting many of the issues that face America than Ron Paul ever has, and look at the result, all Ron Paul will bring is fewer broken promises, so the only reason to vote him in is if you want to be 'let down less'.

However I think he has been clearer about the fact all troops need to be brought home, not just some troops involved in a specific conflict, so in that regard I think Yogi is right in that there would be some serious consequences from the establishment if he tried to do that, so it would be impossible for him, even if he is actually telling the truth about wanting to do it. As for the policies he wants to introduce that will have far reaching negative consequences for the vast majority of Americans (e.g. dropping/lowering corporate taxes), those will get passed easily.

>> ^joedirt:

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.
There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.
I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...


@ant as well

SOPA is dead but PIPA is still alive and well, and in need of a boycott.

The boycott is still on acct to this link at reddit to protest the continued threat, I say GAME ON CONGRESS!!!

*promote

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.

For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.

>> ^joedirt:

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.
There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.
I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...


http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/16/1457237/house-kills-sopa

SOPA could return in the future.

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.

There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.

I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

I suppose I can't expect everyone to know everything His Earness says, I sure don't.

RE: "Skin in the game" But it would be nice if SOMEONE knew OBAMA SAID IT.


Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election. If the Supreme Doofs rule this piece of crap commiecare NO ONE wanted "Constitutional" (P.S., it isn't) expect another economic nosedive.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all.


It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

If it's a "myth", as the left proclaims, then who ARE the job creators? Certainly not government, as a government job is a tax drain. Small businesses, while making up the highest percentage of businesses, can only hire so many employees, and if obamacare passes, you can expect they'll be hiring even fewer.


Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.

If liberals, who make up just over half the population, really feel this way about corporations, then why don't they do something on their own?

I don't know if Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco, is a liberal, but Costco pays an almost-living wage to start and he's stated his employees come first over both rapid growth and the whims of stockholders. When Ben and Jerry ran their company, they "used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees". I got no problem with that, and obviously it was profitable.

Don't wait for government to make everything "fair". You'll be too poor to notice when it happens.

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

It's crap.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all. Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears!
Liberals have only two responses to every problem: Cry "Racism!" and Raise Taxes. I'm not making this up, it's proven here all the time. This sift is about the latter and you've proven the point with the former.
But since you want to bring race into it, the only reason this marxist goofus has gotten away with so much failure is the cowards who are supposed to be standing up to his baloney won't because he's Black.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

For those who care, Christie Clark (Premier of BC) has a new chief of staff. An Enbridge lobbyist.
If she is still in office when the decision is made, the outcome of the hearings is irrelevant. She will greenlight the project.


Tragic. The Government of BC, bought and paid for by the same people who purchased Stephen Harper back in 2004.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/clarks-new-chief-of-staff-advised-harper-lobbied-for-enbridge/article2301027
/?from=sec368

For those who care, Christie Clark (Premier of BC) has a new chief of staff. An Enbridge lobbyist.

If she is still in office when the decision is made, the outcome of the hearings is irrelevant. She will greenlight the project.