It's kinda sad that this seems like a moderate and semi-reasonable critique coming from the opposition.

The bar is seriously, seriously low.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

i don't think we as Citizens of the United States are angry enough to do anything about it tho.

Maybe if they called american idol or dancing with the star folks would give a damn.

For shame.

Are Republicans STILL trying to be useful and relevant to the United States of America? You'd think that after losing the Office of the President, and both sections of Congress, they might learn their 'values' and 'ethics' leave alot to be desired. Frankly, the Republicans are more deep seated with corporations then Democrats by a factor of 5:1. They always have been.

Yeah, you could call Obama a corporatist and I'm sure the republicans would love that. Though, Republicans are mainly the ones who have created this shit monster we have here. They were the OG corporatists - corrupting everything including your grandma's potato salad. I'm sure they love hearing this new vocab word "corporatist" as another word to toss at the "opposing side" and get all high and mighty about Jesus Christ, protesting scientific FACTS, humanist goals, healthcare and letting the top 1% take everything from their pea brained families and everyone elses.

But, one cannot proclaim anyone else is a corporatist unless that person tossing around the term acknowledges that this is NOT a democracy that we live in. It's completely misleading to toss around new "gotcha moments" and not put that out into the open. So, since this is NOT a democracy what difference does it make? If Obama is a corporatist what does that make the Republican party? Megalithic Elephant Testicle Sack Corporate Dingbats & complacent globalist murderers? Seriously, don't even listen to Ron Paul he is a Pro-life, Christian nutcase...

and I cannot even stop with that thought, here is the rest of my rant: everyone in that party needs to shut their huge gaping lie spreading mouths and open up their assholes to receive their nightly $10000000 fistful of cash up into there from good ol' Captain America (Enron, Bechtel, Lockheed, industry lobbyists, the couple of corporate media conglomerates showering the country with bullshit ideas, the insurance companies, big oil, etc etc etc) Open up, piggies! Eat your shit inorganic food, here's some shitty tuna and some shitty fries don't forget to chug it down with some high fructose corn syrup so you can get diabetes, let's watch your brains decay but only after you hand over your wallet to the top 1% who already own everything.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00005906

Say what you will about the republican party, but RP is a hell of a role model for the rest of them.

number 1 campaign contributor: the retired (the most dangerous people of all, behind the wheel)

I'm starting to wonder the crowd was applauding the fact that corporations are, in fact, running the country.

It wouldn't surprise me that they enjoy this.

But WP said that Obama IS a socialist.

Who you gonna believe? Him or Ron Paul?

I just don't understand the "Corporatist" label.

Corporations are organisms composed of individuals. Any action taken by a corporation, positive or negative, cannot be attributed to the "Corporation" but the individuals who are a part of that corporation. Once you decide to try to attribute any single action by a corporation to single individual within the corporation you find it's next to impossible. Decisions are not made unilaterally by individuals, each individual is complicit in the actions taken. Dig deeper and you'll find there are rarely any distinct individuals who actually hold the power to make decisions. Each individual is beholding to take the direction that's best for the corporation as a whole.

How many people in that audience work for a corporation? I'm betting nearly every single one of them. So when Ron Paul calls out 'Corporations' as the boogie-man he's actually implicating every single person in that audience for the decisions and actions they take every single day in the course of their work.

If you work for a Corporation and your Corporation is responsible for negative activity that hurst individuals, communities, the nation, the world...then you are guilty of contributing to those actions no matter what your roll in the Corporation. It may be reassuring to convince yourself that others within the corporation are responsible but then try to identify those individuals. The closer you inspect the actions of each individual the more you'll realize no one individual is responsible. We're all responsible.

^Corporatism is the effort to give corporations more power, dominance and control over citizens. It would be a bad thing even if corporations weren't so abusive and destructive. Wal*Mart employees are not responsible for corporatism, they are victims of it.

Don't the corporatists also want deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government - small enough to drown in a bathtub? I admire Ron Paul for bringing up corporatism, but without a strong government, there is nothing to stand in the way of increased corporate power.

WIN!

*quality. He's a corporatist that loves basketball and being spontaneous!

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

I can see why the Tea Partiers dislike Paul... his speeches must confuse the hell out of them.

Free Market = Good
Corporations = Bad
Corporations -> part of the Free Market
More Regulation = Larger Government
Less Regulation = Stronger Corporations?
Medicare/Social Security = Bad?

It's much simpler to think that corporations are the victims of big government and that the budget can be cut significantly without touching entitlement programs.

I wonder why we accept people like Obama and McCain and somehow manage to forget or marginalize people like Kucinich and Paul? It should've been Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich in 2008, if you ask me.

^ Politics are too complicated for most voters.

We get the politicians that are easiest to sell to people who are only vaguely paying attention.

>> ^blankfist:

I wonder why we accept people like Obama and McCain and somehow manage to forget or marginalize people like Kucinich and Paul? It should've been Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich in 2008, if you ask me.


Because Kucinich is an idiot.

I'd actually love to see a Paul vs Obama matchup come 2012. It would make for the most interesteing POTUS debates of all time. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ron Paul, he never intentionally lies and has a keen policy mind.

The rest of the crop of R's are all mostly Good Ol Boy (ie: racist) assholes who have zero understanding of policy, barely even know the difference between the constitution and the declaration of independence, and willfully lie to your face without batting an eye.

@blankfist because Paul is too liberal for the people on the right (wants peace and drug legalization), too absolutist for the moderates (wants to eliminate Medicare and Social Security), and too conservative for the liberals (ditto, plus 1000 other things).

Kucinich is a bit too standoffish for most liberals, too liberal for most moderates, and is probably considered worse than Satan by conservatives.

The other problem you have with both Paul and Kucinich is that they don't poll well against mainstream opponents, which makes electability a real concern.

Now, one way to fix that would be instant runoff voting, where you rank candidates in order of preference, rather than do a straight up vote. That way people could officially show support for Kucinich, even if they knew he couldn't win, and still have a voice in the Obama vs. Clinton fight. I don't think that would've changed the outcome on the Democratic side, but on the Republican side I doubt McCain would have won the nomination, and Paul likely would have come out looking pretty strong.

Although Ron Paul and Kucinich have very different ideologies or world views on what methods to better society. Both are genuine to their causes. Both are intelligent and seem to want to find a truth to back their ideas. Both don't need to lie and strawman their way way through a discussion. Unfortunately what they have to do is the opposite. When honest people have to spend so much time dispelling fallacies and stay marganalized, shows just how fallacy infested the social narrative towards what's going on in society is. them>>> ^blankfist:

I wonder why we accept people like Obama and McCain and somehow manage to forget or marginalize people like Kucinich and Paul? It should've been Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich in 2008, if you ask me.

I don't care if Kucinich says he saw a UFO. Most of the Republicans say they believe in an invisible man in the sky, so I can trade one forgivable delusion for another.

Also, Mike Gravel was cool. Trust me, I can't stand his ideas on Direct Democracy, but the man had integrity. And so did Kucinich.

I've noticed I tend to like more Democrats than Republicans. During the primaries, I'd take any of the Dem noms over any of the Repub noms (Paul excluded). Romney was the scariest piece of shit up there, and he frightened the hell out of me. All I saw was biblical war when I saw him.

@geo321, I think honesty and truth are political assets, not liabilities, as long as you are adept at showily breaking through the lies and strawmen of your opponents.

The real problem with Kucinich and Paul is they both have trouble relating to people. They're both so wrapped up in a shell of ideological righteousness that they forget they need to actually be able to build a bridge between what they believe and what generally non-political people believe and understand.

For example, both have a desire to effectively recall all US troops from everywhere and massively cut the military budget. I'm at least open to the idea, but usually they both go past what even I would think is sane, and they don't make any attempt to persuade. Both just give simplistic reasons for why they'd do this Kucinich makes a bluntly moral argument (Peace is strength), while Paul makes essentially the same bluntly moral argument with different aesthetics (our military is meant for defense only).

Neither acknowledges that people who're open to the idea (like me) need some persuasion before they're willing make that kind of radical shift in our foreign policy in one fell swoop. It seems to me that you could get a lot more people to follow you by just saying "we want out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to generally take an approach to foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy" in your official platform, but then make clear in your speeches that "one day" you'd like to see all the troops come home from everywhere, and that you think America should take on the role of being the world's friend, not police man.

You need to rally people behind you, not just shout "I'm right, vote for me!" at people.

Kucinich is no idiot.

I'm right! (up)Vote for me!

I don't think Obama was being completely dishonest when he was talking about all the changes he was going to make, but didn't. I think he hit the wall where idealism meets reality. As a campaigner its easy to talk about the things you want, and how things should be, but once its time to take action suddenly there's the burden of responsibility, real consequences to be had for your actions and a million voices trying to convince you which direction has the least negative consequences. I'm not trying to let Obama off the hook, I think he's treaded the status quo line to closely. Do little to upset wallstreet or they'll throw a tantrum and send the economy into ruins, and you can't upset the industrial/military complex too much because they're so embedded in our society its removal would cause major problems. My problem with Obama is he's playing their game too much, maybe in our political world he doesn't have much of a realistic choice, he needs to turn the screws on them.

I think we have two big problems in this country:
1. The people with the most power have the least reason to want change. Whatever is going on has been working out pretty well for them, and its pretty hard to work towards something that might not be in your own immediate self interest.
2. The country as a whole has to be able to agree on a direction and actually be able to follow through. There is no reality but that which we create, and for anything to work the majority. Especially the major players, they more than anyone need to buy into that reality, right now I think most of them are just exploiting it. So basically we need a reality that can withstand human nature without trampling on it.

>> ^Psychologic:

I can see why the Tea Partiers dislike Paul... his speeches must confuse the hell out of them.
Free Market = Good
Corporations = Bad
Corporations -> part of the Free Market
More Regulation = Larger Government
Less Regulation = Stronger Corporations?
Medicare/Social Security = Bad?
It's much simpler to think that corporations are the victims of big government and that the budget can be cut significantly without touching entitlement programs.


You and several people in this thread seem terribly confused about his viewpoint, so maybe a libertarian like myself can help you. The "free market" is a term tossed around a lot. What we mean is essentially mutually agreeable trade between producers and the right to make contracts. We believe in courts to adjudicate disputes, penalize and deter fraud, enforce (not interpret) the constitution, etc.

The key oversight for most Dems I talk to is that they want to police/regulate effects rather than eliminate the policy that is producing those effects. I despise "goosing" laws that attempt to reward/induce one legal behavior over another legal behavior, indiscriminately, across an entire populace. I also despise laws that offload one party's risk onto another. Most of the time, I think they're created by well-meaning people who think goosing the populace is their job only to have their goosing backfire. Even if they recognize it was their fault after the fact, a politician will always say the problem is not what they did, but what they didn't also do.

The best analogy I can think of is some cops throwing a bunch of candy on the street, then using the subsequent accidents to justify full-time crossing guards at every intersection. Those are unproductive jobs which can only exist at the expense of private ones. A libertarian sees that the ROOT problem is the policy of throwing the candy in the street, not the accidents it begets. Without a central bank price fixing interest rates well below where the market would have had them, the true risk of borrowing would have been realized, and demand which fueled creative lending wouldn't have existed. Banks naturally do not want to loan money unless they believe they are going to be paid pack, but the GSEs called Fannie May and Freddie Mac were buying and standing behind subprime loans on a massive scale from the commercial banks originating them. The whole concept behind those GSEs is based on the socialist policy that home ownership is more American than renting. That needing a downpayment and good credit before an institution will lend is discriminatory to poorer people. Which is just ridiculous, because that's prudent lending.

And what do they do after the whole thing? Another goosing. Bailing out the failed banks with money from everyone, including their small competitors who were looking to replace them. When you penalize good behavior and reward bad behavior, you create a self-fulfilling loop. I see people who voted for the heavily lobbied, popular, liar candidates and they are POed at CEOs of TARP recipients giving themselves huge golden parachutes. What did they think was going to happen when you gave these idiots MORE money? They are compounding the mistake, over and over and over again.

If you understand Paul's perspective, then you believe that most of our problems, our debt, our military empire, our recurring speculative bubbles, is not from a lack of government intervention, but too much of it in key places. No domestic currency is allowed to compete with the dollar, interest rates aren't set by the market, banks get blanket federal insurance on deposits so they don't have to compete on safety of those deposits. We have subsidies, a concept that presumes a politician spending someone else's production is more effective than the producer himself. We have different tariffs for different industries. It's not that companies are innately bad, it's that we have failed to create a constitution that could not be subverted by rogue judges. You can't be influenced into exercising a power you don't have. Once a judge interprets something to say "yeah, you can do that so as long as you say it's for the general welfare," then the government becomes a conduit for corporate welfare that it wasn't beforehand. People don't understand how powerful the government is. They literally have the power to take money from you by force. It's a necessary evil that they have that ability. That is why it is so god damned important to define and restrict its functions so that groups or businesses don't use it as a conduit to gain an unfair advantage, tapping into involuntary appropriations in what is supposed to be a free/voluntary marketplace.

One sentence to put you all to shame, here it is

Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission.


President Obama, just like all of the others are part of the Plutocracy.

Our Democracy, Constitutional Republic, or whatever was sold to the bank under Truman.

I will channel Carlin once more,



.


I'm going to make a sift talk tutorial on how to do what I just did above.

>> ^BansheeX:
You and several people in this thread seem terribly confused about his viewpoint, so maybe a libertarian like myself can help you.

I was writing that other post from the (attempted) view of a Tea Party activist. The speeches at those rallies tend to be highly simplistic bumper sticker slogans (tax cuts, hopey changey stuff, etc). The people who are attracted to that level of discourse wouldn't make it through your first paragraph, which is why I said Ron Paul probably confuses them.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation though. Libertarian fiscal conservatism appeals to me much more so than standard Republican fiscal conservatism (if you could even call it that). I just saddens me that many people lose interest when a position on an issue is longer than a couple sentences.

>> ^Crosswords:

I don't think Obama was being completely dishonest when he was talking about all the changes he was going to make, but didn't. I think he hit the wall where idealism meets reality.

That's the big problem I would expect with a Ron Paul presidency. I just don't see him getting many (if any) of his big ideas through congress.

@BansheeX you're doing better than you usually do about being condescending, but maybe you can answer me this: why can't libertarians state their opinions as opinions?

Why does it always have to be presented in the style of "A libertarian sees that the ROOT problem is the policy of [economic intervention]" and "If you understand Paul's perspective, then you believe that most of our problems, our debt, our military empire, our recurring speculative bubbles, is not from a lack of government intervention, but too much of it in key places".

You presume a certainty that you cannot have, and should recognize that what you advocate is one part unproven and highly disputed economic theory (as all are), and one part moral philosophy that not everyone shares.

When you guys issue these absolute pronouncements, you sound like religious zealots, and not people who arrived at your beliefs through a process of skeptical analysis of the various theories and evidence.

Socialism for corporations. Capitalism for the rest of us.

>> ^volumptuous:

Socialism for corporations. Capitalism for the rest of us.


More like nationalized socialism for corporations. Nationalized socialism for corporatism for the rest of us.

@NordlichReiter, I love that Carlin clip. Though the term "god" didn't always mean a supernatural or presonal god. God is creation and can also be natural. Richard Dawkins wrote about this in the God Delusion.

That's why saying rights are god given shouldn't be seen as a Judeo-Christian creator gave them to us.

Cheers to BansheeX for giving the libertarian perspective intact, as it should be. Libertarians do indeed have tons of examples where regulations give advantage to the corporations who are a part of government.

As a progressive, I propose more regulations to fix this.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

i don't think we as Citizens of the United States are angry enough to do anything about it tho.
Maybe if they called american idol or dancing with the star folks would give a damn.
For shame.


Of course they are angry enough - they just those who ARE DOING stuff have been mislead: eg teaparty peeps

Here's why Ron Paul will never get elected.

He will cut the Military spending, he will cut non essential government entities, and welfare; not welfare at state levels, but federal welfare meaning tax reform. Corporate welfare? Gone.

I wonder how many people will lose their jobs, and that alone is enough to seal his fate.

The SCOTUS decision on Citizens United effectively destroys his chances, thanks to our brand of democracy where a corporate entity can be a citizen!

The American people should be up in arms about Citizens United, but it's to late now.

Soon people will forget.