Need more punishment for people who abuse/abandon animals. Most the time, offenders just get a new animal after the old one gets boring/too big/whatever.

You can see very clearly in animals that have not been taken care of properly how it affects their life span and quality of life. Much like you can in people who were not cared for properly, or got even basic medical things covered.

Shouldn't be this way for people or pets in the US, makes me sick to my stomach.

Sure he would. This whole video is him speculating that Carolyn Maloney will be the Democratic Party's ranking member in the finance committee, because that's who the banksters want.

And then he spends 5 minutes crowing about how right he is because an article got published in a newspaper that pretty clearly indicated banksters like her. So what? Only crazy Republicans think the newspapers work for the Democratic party.

Plus, every quote he took from the article was sourced to someone on Wall Street's side. Where's a source from, say, someone in the Democratic party who's part of the decision-making process? Nowhere to be found in Cenk's piece. But, in the article he's sourcing all this from, there's this:

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

And this:

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

And this:

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

Oh, so Nancy Pelosi, the CBC, and Maxine herself all think she's a lock? Well, that would kinda undercut Cenk's anti-Democratic spin, so he doesn't mention any of that.

Cenk's whole show seemed to just be a vehicle for bashing Democrats, often for things they aren't actually guilty of doing. Like...this whole thing about Carolyn Maloney, which is 100% speculation!

At this point he honestly seems to me like some sort of Karl Rove creation designed to depress Democratic turnout and liberal activism.

>> ^messenger:

Cenk would only say that Waters had sold out to the banks if it were demonstrably true. He's big on backing up his statements with facts. He would never just speculate that she "must have" sold out.

>> ^Auger8:

Ya I totally agree here I'm from Texas and sports get all the attention whatever money is left over goes to standardized testing which is a crock in and of itself. And people wonder why un-employment is so high in America.
It's because public schools teach absolutely nothing of value to kids whatsoever!
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Porksandwich:

Like I've always felt in the US that the sports programs and all the cost associated with them plus the competition they spawn within the student body and against other schools is not beneficial. Basically you end up with a small group of players who get the school to bend over backwards to make things possible for them and everyone else loses out on it, in fact they often have to pay for tickets to even see the events their parents tax dollars make possible.

I agree.
We've made our school system (including college) a farm team for the NBA, NFL.



But I'd argue, it's the system that those in power want and corporations want. Because it allows them the excuse to ship high school level jobs out to other countries. You see it all the time "We can't find any qualified candidates!" and then they need H1B visa restrictions lifted so they can bring people in or the job goes to another country after they milk the taxpayers for "tax breaks" on a building promising some jobs and conveniently forget to deliver on the jobs.

It's a systematic breakdown of all counters and checks to their ability to solely profit since no one can compete against them if they make consumers as dumb as possible in general, ship the jobs overseas, and bring all the products back at reduced prices until they kill any possible competition ....then jack the prices up. And now there's been a huge lull in jobs in manufacturing, etc...so the schools aren't preparing people for those jobs or training schools have went under and the general population education level has dropped to prevent it from easily being fixed.

And.......since they control lots of money (and therefore power), they can now keep it that way because they are "too big" to be told no. And now they are trying to privatize stuff to get even more cash out of people, and then they completely control the whole process and you will be just as educated as they'll let you be.

if it looks like banks are just sucking out money from hapless europeans, congratulations. You understand it.

Greed caused the too-big-to-fail banks to take on impossible amounts of debt. now that the bankers got their bonuses, and the banks are in jeopardy, the hedge funds will be making huge returns for the ultra-rich. Literally, it's a vacuum for money as these bad debts stay on the books.

Porksandwich,

I'm totally onboard with criticizing the Obama administration for not breaking up too big to fail banks, punishing the banks for their misdeeds, etc. That should have come part and parcel with the bailouts. But, the bailouts were still successful because they stopped the bleeding.

There's plenty to criticize the Obama administration and Congress for. It's not the bailouts that I have a problem with. It's the inaction afterwards to prevent another crisis.

Unfortunately, the GOP is bound and determined to nominate a candidate I can't consider voting for.

>> Do you believe that Randall should live or die?

He has to die. He's a liar and a manipulator and cannot be trusted. He claims he "ain't like them," but is darned eager to get back to them, as he told Carl. Also, he illustrated his lack of value for human life on the roof and when Shane was trapped in the bus. His freedom is a direct threat to the farm.

>> What is going on with Karl?

He's becoming a young man and wants to prove himself a big boy who can take care of himself and kill emotionless like the grown-ups.

>> How should his parents approach this situation?

They have to beat into his brain the seriousness and value of all their actions. Still, growing up in Zombieland, he's going to be screwed up no matter what.

>> Lastly, do you think Karl will fess up about that zombie and the situation that occurred earlier--possibly his scent leading the zombie back to the camp for all we know--that zombie wasn't exactly going the right way beforehand...?

I think Carl might fess up if he still has enough of a conscience left, but I don't think it matters either way. So what if he happened to be a zombie he freed. It could have come from anywhere. It's Dale's carelessness that got him killed.

>> Do you think it was the right time to kill off Dale?

It was the PERFECT time to execute Dale, especially because I was rooting for him to die the entire episode.

>> What was your IMMEDIATE reaction when he was torn open and you KNEW he was a dead man?

When we saw his body get ripped open, my wife and I high-fived and applauded his demise.

>> How will this affect the group: positives/negatives?

Dale will be held as something of a martyr. The message he kept whining about is going to echo in their heads and they're going to reconsider his words and they'll all be much more sensitive to the Randal situation. (The writers just need more inner strife and everyone agreeing to an execution without Dale is too easy, so they'll have to argue more now and give the viewers more drama.)

>> Lastly, who do you think will take up the "power vacuum" left by Dale--for this we'll assume it's NOT Rick as he is the leader?

It's too big a statement to say Dale had any power. His only power was nagging everyone to see things his way.

>> Also if you wish you talk about whether you think "Television Politics" played a part in the, what some would call, his "early death" and to the point, leaving of the series?

I think it was beautiful that he was crying so desperately for the entire episode about shooting a guy in the head only to be shot in the head in the end. It was obviously designed that way, but it was still very nice.

Some sort of spending policy was needed, but the bailout as it was put forth was pretty dismal in it's results. The companies that received it were the ones who created the mess for the most part (banks), and we really still haven't addressed punishing them OR putting laws in place to either:
A) Punish them if it happens again, really the laws now should be sufficient.
B) Make it impossible to happen again....all those acts, they repealed over the last 20-30 years.
C) Prevent some of the more insanity driven investing, such as over abundant speculation and similar cost creating but non-value creating (Call it a Private Tax, if you will) things.

Really the more I look back on the bailout, and look at the attitudes of most of the politicians at that time...they were saying let the auto industry fail. But the bailouts to the auto industries have at least halfway been paid back. Chrysler is likely going to short the government 1.3 billion last I read. GM gave the government stock and 22 billion. Stock is worth about 13.5 billion. They borrowed 50 billion. So 28 billion is what we have to get out of that stock to recover fully. And as far as I know there is no interest accumulated, so losing money in those deals is a kick to the crotch considering.

I think the auto industries might have been able to enter bankruptcy and come back out of it with some lessons learned. But vehicles like the "Volt" show that......they don't really know who they are selling to. Chrysler ended up being taken over by Fiat. And Ford handled it's own business. The one in the worst shape was GM, and I can't say that they probably didn't have it coming. And they still ended up pretty much killing the economy dead in my area despite the bailout when they shut their plants down that they really hadn't "kept up" in DECADES...place was really dumpy looking. No one would take it over because it was just utter trash when they left. I'm more against than for the bailout of the auto industries, but I can see that they were probably beneficial there although GM seemingly learned nothing of note from it.

Banks on the other hand......they took in 1.2 trillion. And a bunch of the borrowed money went to European firms. Along with other financial institutions. And many kept taking loans into 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html

Has lots of info on it. I haven't taken the time to confirm every last portion of it, but we know the bailout/loans of 2008 that were announced ended up being MUCH larger than they told us. So the information is kind of hit and miss since they kept it hush hush for awhile.

But, the money was to help keep the banks off people's backs about foreclosures. It hasn't, in fact they took the money and foreclosed anyway to get both the cash to make it possible to allow the person to keep the house AND the house. That should be criminal.

The bailout of those institutions probably did stop a economic meltdown, but I think that bailout still should be criticized. The people who caused it suffered no punishment by law, financially, or by failure. And they have been fighting have regulations and such put in place to stop it from happening again and from practices like speculation being allowed in such quantities. It's affecting the oil prices and they are using it as a argument for "foreign oil" ALL the time.

Sure the bailout saved us from financial meltdown, but we aren't safe from it happening again. In fact we're probably even more precariously perched at the edge than we were before, and people are making money off that instability. If they could have made money during the total collapse, I don't think they would have gotten bailout to all those institutions.

So, we should criticize the bailout, simply because it has made it possible for the people who control the money to continue making money, and no one has corrected the conditions that caused the collapse in the first place. The people who caused it keep on keeping on, the politicians get some money stuffed in their pockets, and the people who got hurt most by the crash whether you lost your house, job, savings, pension, etc are just lined up to be knocked down again and no one is trying to fix it. The people who had money to weather the crash, are recovering and the people who didn't are still hurt by the crash they had no way of avoiding.

Too big to fail institutions are still too big to fail. Now they know that they can leech all the money from the government whenever they start to lean a little as a collective. Nothing was learned by anyone there, because nothing ended up happening to them besides some bad press...when they should have gotten a major investigation that was more like a full cavity search to determine wrongdoing.

So why is the bigger magnet too big to even look at? Does it pull the iron out of your blood through your eyes or something?

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

This story is way too big for it to be a single good movie.
This is gotta be at least a trilogy.
I think they will spend too much time on the "assemble" part and then rush through the rest of the story.

I have a curator friend who got way too big a kick outta this.. thanks for posting!

@TheFreak, I get your point, but whether or not risks are too big becomes less and less of a problem as technology and production eventually bring costs down. It's not like Earth is falling apart or the Sun is about to explode, so we have all the time in the world to wait for technology to catch up to any dreams of space exploration we or our great grandchildren might have.

Who knows, getting the government out of the way might even help us get there faster.

>> ^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.

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.

It's really not envy. It's people tired of having a small portion of people suck up more and more wealth each year while they themselves can't even get a cost of living raise yearly.

It's been shown time and time again, on the whole the majority of people make less now than they did 20 years ago because they haven't gotten cost of living increases.

They marginalize your job by whatever means they can, and glorify for their positions so much so that not only does their salary not compensate them for DOING THEIR JOB but they also need yearly bonuses that exceed your 10 year income.

And then when times are tough, they continue to take those bonuses and salaries and cut out the jobs that haven't gotten a wage increase in years maybe even decades. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation 99/100 times.

It's a silly way to operate, but they are backed by both politicians and the major money holders in the nation to enforce this weird dichotomy we have. Where even though they will tell you your job is worthless to the company...it never completely disappears...they just move it as close to poverty as they can and still get someone "satisfactory" in the position. Then move onto the next position and repeat it. After they've made their rounds, then they have to offshore as much as possible to continue the downward spiral that allows them to bring in higher and higher profits and pay out increasing bonuses.

And soon you'll see they have to outsource and offshore to other countries (from the ones they are in now) because people eventually figure out that it's fucking nuts to let these guys put a stranglehold on them like they are. Slowly tightening and tightening until it becomes more sustainable to not work versus the cost of clothing, commute, extended hours, health detriment, etc.

If they didn't have everything locked up for 50-100 years via patents and monopolistic deals, we could have small businesses spring up in our country to compete that might actually force them to pay competitive wages if they want to keep customers by providing quality service and quick repairs. But they continue to run "satisfactory"...and satisfactory standards get lowered each year. People get paid less, less people work there.....they pull in more money per employee by providing less service. And never grow or maintain their operations to stay modern (look specifically at cell phones and ISPs for this), but charge increasingly more each year for less service.

How can you envy that kind of behavior? The money they gain is coming from directly fucking over their employees and customers. The "more successful" ones are just better (more ruthless) at fucking people over.

Neither party wants this kind of behavior to end, that's why none of them actually bring all this bullshit to the forefront and call out specific businesses (especially the TOO BIG outfits) for their behavior. FCC blocking AT&T + T-Mobile merger is what they exist to do, and they are getting slapped on the back for doing it after months and months of information gathering on it, when the layperson on the street could tell you one less provider equals more being fucked as a consumer like they aren't getting fucked enough as is.

I wish they would start revoking the charters of corporations for negligence and malfeasance. They are like parasites feeding on the population at this point, and not mutualists that are good for the human body and in turn the population. And they are parasitic in more than one way, services rendered with their rising costs, and workforce shrinkage with it's decreasing wages and total amount of jobs.