>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Any idea what the context is?
If it's tax policy, Romney has a point. Taxing a corporation is the same as taxing its shareholders and customers. It would be interesting to see republican voters thinking seriously about who is actually going to pay for fixing our national finances. Unfortunately they're likely to come to the same conclusion as the populists: "not me."


I could be mistaken, but in the full exchange I think he was saying that Democrats want to "raise people's taxes" and someone in the audience heckles "not people, corporations, corporations" then he responds with what's shown in this clip. Only saw the full segment once though, so I'm probably paraphrasing a bit.

Anyway, if people own corporations, but corporations have the Constitutional rights of people, isn't that slavery? Maybe Romney could free them and be the next Lincoln. We'll look back at oppressive shareholders in the same way we now view southern plantation owners.

[Wow, this sorta tumbled off topic but we'll see where it goes.]

      1.] Slavery bit

Declining profitability & the industrial revolution ended slavery.
Federal regulations were implemented later, mostly as political platforms.

If you're Britain, and the paid-workers of Brazil or Cuba can produce more sugarcane at lower prices compared to slave-workers.. which side of slavery would you support?

If you're an American plantation owner, how much money are you willing to waste rebuilding your business after every, rapidly increasing slave revolt?

If you're an American or European Labor Union supporter, are you going to buy sugar or textiles from companies that don't pay their workers?

[No, you might even start a petition to enact legislation.]

      2.] Regulation ≠ Improvement

You and @peggedbea seem to think I'm implying that oligarchs should be allowed off some magical leash called regulation.

What I should have articulated first, was the understanding that:
Regulation & incentive - sticks & carrots - work counter-intuitively, more often than not.

Think about it. Is it the people typing up the regulations or the management?
Is it the workers writing up the wage laws or the owners?

If you're a small business owner who you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, you're out of the game before you can even start.

Regulations are the Oligarchs best tool to maintain or expand their power.

Mostly because folks like you & Bea legitimize their authority thru your support of regulation as the best thing since sliced bread.

      Lastly

While I support truly free economic exchange, I also support single payer universal health care.

It's possible for them both to exist together at once.

The sooner more people are allowed into the market..
the sooner capitalist fundamentalist healthcare oligarchs will be overlooked because someone offers a better service.

[Again, are you gonna buy from the small, local owner whose minimum wage is slightly below your standards.

..Or the giant multinational conglomerate who uses Southeast Asian slave labor.]

These things tend to work themselves out.

Attempting to elicit obedience from the oligarch only causes problem for all of us you aren't powerful enough to game the system like they can.

Hence, why free economic exchange - yes even the darker side - is necessary for true liberty.



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://videosift.com/video/Ber
nie-Sanders-slaps-down-Rand-Paul-Health-care-as-slavery?loadcomm=1#comment-1205705

>> ^BoneRemake:

Cool beans, Just an experiment but what is the "penalty" or law if you will, on changing your dead videos.... Everything, and keeping the votes ? Because what I just did was completely .. what ? grey? illegal siftlegal.. @dag ? @lucky760
I mean I know its a dupe, I am going to kill it. Just a point with a questions or a questions with a live actual example.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaankkkkkkkkks


You can't do it. I'm guessing you would get hobbled and a warning. Do you seriously think it would be ok to do?

@BoneRemake had posted a vid of the original newsreport. Has some details this woman can't manage to get out.

http://videosift.com/video/Bears-protect-Cannabis-plantation.'

Plus --- *Canada. I forgot to do that.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison.

Not really.

A better comparison would be if someone wanted to open up a church next to MLK's grave, and people opposed it because the people who shot MLK were Christian.

It doesn't even make sense as a thing to get upset about unless you're making a fundamental mistake about the nature of what happened on 9/11.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison. Not all Muslim's are terrorists, not all plantation owners are racist; it is the connotation people are upset with. Now, the government shouldn't be in the business of regulation what qualifies as a, what some would see as, morally offensive position. However, it shouldn't go as unexpected that people going in and out of that building might suffer a fair share of contempt from locals. I am not a very sentimental person, so I don't really care at all, but I can see how people could.


It makes sense that a lot of the public feels this way. The public relations industry scored huge points for equating Iraq with 9/11 to the point of people believing Saddam was behind it and that there were Iraqis on the planes. It's a tremendous achievement that shouldn't be overlooked, we went from a country not wanting a war with Iraq in the least to feverishly desiring war completely.

So when you equate Muslims with some extremists that follow their same teachings, you're simply doing what the media, yes the liberal media wants you to. They want war, they are in charge of a democracy, they have to find some way to control the people. They have gotten very good at it, the fact that all the countries around Iraq, even Kuwait which was nearly destroyed by them didn't feel threatened by them at all yet we claimed that they were an imminent threat to our very survival and thus needed to be subjected to war. It's quite extraordinary.

It's the same people that were in the Reagan administration telling us that Grenada was a threat to our survival. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks either we are a tremendously racist country, or we're so heavily indoctrinated we can't see strait. Stop being so scared, you look like an idiot.

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison. Not all Muslim's are terrorists, not all plantation owners are racist; it is the connotation people are upset with. Now, the government shouldn't be in the business of regulation what qualifies as a, what some would see as, morally offensive position. However, it shouldn't go as unexpected that people going in and out of that building might suffer a fair share of contempt from locals. I am not a very sentimental person, so I don't really care at all, but I can see how people could.

And by the way, you're a nazi. Now we're even in the unfounded accusations department.

Gotta go chill on my plantation. See ya later.

If Tropico 3 is any indication ; there needs to be more banana plantations - maybe a new warehouse or two, a couple of residential blocks, a trade agreement/bailout plan with Russia and when the economy gets strong install a cheap tourism state at which point we can forget about the natives and prosper! Man, that game was great...

This guy is so un-republican. He's NOT:

1) White
2) Old
3) Super Rich
4) Afraid of Socialistic Communism (how that works, I dont know)
5) Cares about those in his district
6) Has a spine

Yeah, this guy is so going to turn Democrat. Mr. Micheal Steele, 'head guy' for the GOP announced before this vote, that if anyone supported it, there would be harsh consequences. Well, Mr. Steele, is just a 'yes' man of his party. Someone that does what ever his GOP Masters tell him to do or say. I guess its rather sad when one thinks about it, with Mr. Steele. He's no more an a true American, then his Ancestor in bondage back before the Civil War on the plantations...

Well, representational democracy also covers constitutional republic. You still have elected officials that represents the people in a democratic process. Constitutional republic is a sub-set of representational democracy. Incidentally, we have a Constitutional Monarchy in Denmark.

Right now I can't see a reasonable alternative to a republic/democracy the way it exists now; It's all just facets of the same thing. Sure I would love to see a lot of cleaning up within it, lord knows that the laws are in need of an overhaul and have been for 200 years.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Most Republicans tend to cite the Constitution more so than Libertarians - a lot of Libertarians argue against social contracts, etc. Though, I do like that document a great deal, which is largely because I have a tedious interest in U.S. History, the French Enlightenment that shaped the U.S. government, and the philosophies behind reason vs. passion in human government.

I don't who you're talking about when you say the solution "we've" used is a representational Democracy, unless you mean Denmark's Parliamentary Democracy. In the U.S. we have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is 51% taking the rights away from 49%.

You're correct to praise the Framers of this country. I'd say they're a bit more than just smart people, as the ideas of reason based protective governance was quite brilliant. But, they certainly were flawed and human. My personal favorite, Thomas Jefferson, rallied for slavery to be abolished in his younger political years, but by the late 1790s he spoke very little of it, and his plantation life showed him as contradictory to any practical belief of freedom for slaves. This was more because he didn't think it was practical over him not believing in it.

His ideas of emancipation wasn't for the blacks to mingle with the whites. He believed in segregation and thought a lot of it had to do with the natural difference between the races and also because he was sure the black slaves, once freed, would rise up and fight the whites until one race wiped out the other.

I don't think we've ever had a great president. Ever. Washington signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act which made assisting the escape of slaves a Federal crime. John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act which infringed greatly on freedom of speech. Jefferson, as president, was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which double the size of government overnight even though he ran on a smaller government ticket that opposed the Federalists. Jackson. Lincoln. Not a one.

Except Taft. He believed the president's powers should only be as much as given to him by the Constitution. Nothing more. He is remembered as lazy and fat, which is unfair.

Most Republicans tend to cite the Constitution more so than Libertarians - a lot of Libertarians argue against social contracts, etc. Though, I do like that document a great deal, which is largely because I have a tedious interest in U.S. History, the French Enlightenment that shaped the U.S. government, and the philosophies behind reason vs. passion in human government.

I don't who you're talking about when you say the solution "we've" used is a representational Democracy, unless you mean Denmark's Parliamentary Democracy. In the U.S. we have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is 51% taking the rights away from 49%.

You're correct to praise the Framers of this country. I'd say they're a bit more than just smart people, as the ideas of reason based protective governance was quite brilliant. But, they certainly were flawed and human. My personal favorite, Thomas Jefferson, rallied for slavery to be abolished in his younger political years, but by the late 1790s he spoke very little of it, and his plantation life showed him as contradictory to any practical belief of freedom for slaves. This was more because he didn't think it was practical over him not believing in it.

His ideas of emancipation wasn't for the blacks to mingle with the whites. He believed in segregation and thought a lot of it had to do with the natural difference between the races and also because he was sure the black slaves, once freed, would rise up and fight the whites until one race wiped out the other.

I don't think we've ever had a great president. Ever. Washington signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act which made assisting the escape of slaves a Federal crime. John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act which infringed greatly on freedom of speech. Jefferson, as president, was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which double the size of government overnight even though he ran on a smaller government ticket that opposed the Federalists. Jackson. Lincoln. Not a one.

Except Taft. He believed the president's powers should only be as much as given to him by the Constitution. Nothing more. He is remembered as lazy and fat, which is unfair.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Oh that I can agree with. The bureaucracy of a government is immense and stupefying. And politicians see themselves as gods among men, who don't really have time for the "rabble" until election time, where babies are kissed and interns are hidden. I would like to see some other form of leadership, but anything over a certain size just can't be organized of individual autonomous parts and the solution we've used so far is representational democracy. I don't like it as such, as people should be able to "reason" any laws a regulations by themselves, but people are vastly different in what they see as "proper", so we make real written laws to be able to "live with our neighbors" and have a common codex to adhere to.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the law and government.

While we're speaking of government/religion, I find it hilarious that most conservative republicans and libertarians too, for that matter, adhere to the constitution as if its a holy text. The founding fathers were not Jesuses, they were only smart people. And we've evolved since then, which is why the constitution also must be able to change and not be the end-all solution.

The issue with that is that these days "do as he pleases with...the product of his labor" usually really means "do as they please with...the product of other men's labor [that they have unwittingly surrendered voluntarily]".

Attempts to correct the situation is called slavery by the slavemasters (and their unwitting chattel). The thing those comments are directed at what would more accurately be called reparations for the slavery that's already been enacted.

Freeing the slaves required telling men they had to give up the rights to do as they pleased with what they considered their own property.

I'm sure the same southern plantation owners towing this line today were making the same case then; that liberty did indeed mean they had a right to do as they pleased with their property. Later they claimed the right to refuse service or employment to their former property which had so crassly been "redistributed".

Now they realize the best way to defuse demands of equal pay for equal work is to just cut everyone's pay to slave wages, and call anyone who got out of line "uppity" or "socialist", for wanting some sense of equality with their masters.

good vid - but it's a bit of stretch to lay that completely at Dove's feet. Palm oil is used for all sorts of stuff. And Indonesia is deforesting not just for plantations.

http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/indonesia/forests.htm

For balance, from the PhoenixNewTimes story:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/

To say that Earl and Patty Hopper devote all of their waking hours to the POW/MIA issue would be just short of an overstatement. They travel the country in an RV, visiting other POW/MIA-niks, attending conferences, badgering government officials for more information about Earl Jr.

The Hoppers have located two former POWs who claim they were senior ranking officers at the time McCain says he was tortured in solitary confinement. Ted Guy and Gordon "Swede" Larson both tell New Times that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it.
"Between the two of us, it's our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as "The Plantation"]," Larson says. ". . . My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted's knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from."