• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

You may not welcome your corporate overlords, but the policies you support are quite amicable to these corporations, which is why they support politicians like Obama so readily, and fight hard to keep a politician like Ron Paul from gaining ground

Ron Paul's free, green market - Global warming - Salon.com

Corporations require a functioning society with consumers who are able to purchase their goods. That's why they support Obama and not a crazy like Ron Paul.
 
It is about what the media tells you. The reason you think Paul is a "fringe element lunatic" is because the entire dynamic has been presented to you by the media in such a way that you are intended to conclude as such. Both the "mainstream" liberals and "mainstream" conservatives have strong elements of authoritarianism in their philosophy and so naturally when someone presents a philosophy that is far removed from the authoritarianism of both sides you are supposed to view him as a "fringe element lunatic" because otherwise your continued submission to authority would be impossible.

You are victim to one of the classic methods the State uses to stifle resistance, labeling all dissent as madness.

So now the state owns the media. Interesting. How do you form your enlightened opinions?
 
You may not welcome your corporate overlords, but the policies you support are quite amicable to these corporations, which is why they support politicians like Obama so readily, and fight hard to keep a politician like Ron Paul from gaining ground

Ron Paul's free, green market - Global warming - Salon.com

Yeah... Ron Paul's solution to the environment- the same as his solution to everything else: remove government, sprinkle magical fairy dust, wait for problem to solve self... In my view his whole platform boils down to "lets just give up on the country and hope for the best"...

As for corporate donations, a few things. First off, corporations more often donate to the candidate that they think will win rather than the candidate they want to win. They are trying to buy influence, not only trying to influence elections. But secondly, the stats you hear about "BP donated more to Obama" or whatever are always a bit of a scam. If you actually read the articles they actually say "BP and all of its employees donated more to Obama than McCain"... So like all the people working in their gas stations, manual laborers, etc, combined. That isn't remotely the same thing as saying BP donated more money to Obama.
 
Corporations require a functioning society with consumers who are able to purchase their goods. That's why they support Obama and not a crazy like Ron Paul.

delusional.....
 
As for corporate donations, a few things. First off, corporations more often donate to the candidate that they think will win rather than the candidate they want to win.

Ron Paul does win elections, he has been winning elections to national office for over a decade. you have nothing but bull**** to offer.
 
Ron Paul does win elections, he has been winning elections to national office for over a decade. you have nothing but bull**** to offer.

What are you talking about kiddo? You were speculating about the reasons that corporations donate money to Obama... Now it seems like you're off on some other angle?
 
What are you talking about kiddo? You were speculating about the reasons that corporations donate money to Obama... Now it seems like you're off on some other angle?

kiddo? I am directly pointing out the nonsensical portion of your reply girly girl
 
kiddo? I am directly pointing out the nonsensical portion of your reply girly girl

I'm not sure where you got anything about Ron Paul from my comment that corporations donated to Obama because they thought he would win, not necessarily because they liked his policies... Remember, you claimed that the reason they donated to Obama was because he would give them bailouts or whatever? I countered that, but then you went off on something about Ron Paul?
 
I'm not sure where you got anything about Ron Paul from my comment that corporations donated to Obama because they thought he would win, not necessarily because they liked his policies... Remember, you claimed that the reason they donated to Obama was because he would give them bailouts or whatever? I countered that, but then you went off on something about Ron Paul?

they donate to him because they know he will implement policy that favors corporations

you claimed it has to do with his being able to win, but as I pointed out, they don't care about that - Ron Paul wins elections, but unlike Obama, he does not coddle the wealthy so they actievly seek to prevent him from winning, if they pay attention at all.

you people are the biggest phonies in the world. you care about the environment? laughable. the minute we enter into a recession (which slows consumption helping the environment) you scream that we must start consuming again, and support policy to do just that. the corporations love it, they want us to stop saving and start consuming.
 
I will keep telling myself that. And in about 14 months I won't any more.... you actually think Obama's going to get re-elected with the U.S. in the **** it's in? :lamo


Keep telling yourself: Hope and Change and drink that kool-aid.

Unless the republicans can miraculously find an electable candidate, then yes I do. The trash they are running out there will not beat Obama. Despite his vulnerability, he will beat any of the losers currently running.

It sure would suck to be a rw right now.
 
Bachman actually WANTS to destroy our economy by defaulting on the debt. She is 100 times scarier than Paul, and he's plenty scary.

OMG, she wants to ruin the economy. She just so WANTS to. :roll:
 
Unless the republicans can miraculously find an electable candidate, then yes I do. The trash they are running out there will not beat Obama. Despite his vulnerability, he will beat any of the losers currently running.

It sure would suck to be a rw right now.

You'll lose because you won't get a liberal agenda.
 
they donate to him because they know he will implement policy that favors corporations

you claimed it has to do with his being able to win, but as I pointed out, they don't care about that - Ron Paul wins elections, but unlike Obama, he does not coddle the wealthy so they actievly seek to prevent him from winning, if they pay attention at all.

you people are the biggest phonies in the world. you care about the environment? laughable. the minute we enter into a recession (which slows consumption helping the environment) you scream that we must start consuming again, and support policy to do just that. the corporations love it, they want us to stop saving and start consuming.

Okay, I'm a bit confused. Your beef with Obama is that he's too pro-business? He's the anti-socialist?
 
Some? You betcha
A majority? Maybe

Like it or not, the traditional conservative view on women is barefoot and pregnant...



Considering you and your cohorts label anything that you disagree with as "left wing", then your words dont mean much.

And yes, Conservative women often do get a hard time by the opposition.. but it is not because they are women, but because there are so few of them, that they do stick out like a sore thumb and when they come with idiotic comments on a regular basis, then well..

It is the same with Herman Cain.. he is black, and a front line conservative... a quite rare thing... but are people racists for being critical of him? of course not, not when he comes stupid comments and has bonehead policy ideas. And yes the same goes for Obama.



LOL "playing victim" alert.

Palin brought her family into her political campaigning and then like it or not they are fair game. She is the one that paraded her whole family on a very constant pace at all rallies she was at. She is the one having one of her kids hold the baby.. she is the one who pushed Bristol with her big belly into the media spotlight and she is the one that got tax payers to pay for her whole family as they always travelled with her (instead of being in school....?) when she was governor of Alaska.

As for Bachmann.. her family is in no way being scrutinised as Palin's was/is. Her children are pretty non existent in the reports I have seen, which frankly is good. Sure her husband is in the spotlight, but that is a self inflicted wound.

You got reputable sources for that?
 
A number of problems with your thinking... First off, that strategy of not buying stuff would only protect the consumers and only to the extent that they have a choice of products and only to the extent that they are aware of the issue. It does nothing to protect employees, people that live nearby, people who share the environment with the corporation, people who depend on natural resources the corporation exploits, etc. And even for consumers, without government they are highly unlikely to have any way to be aware of who is polluting or mistreating their workers or whatever, since nobody could compel corporations to release any information.
Is it your argument that a company can exist without profits? If no one purchases from them it is irrelevant? Only the consumer benefits from any sold product?

As for suing... You realize suing somebody in a court of law is a service provided by government... That is how individuals can enforce regulations. Government gives them that ability... Without government there would be no law to sue over, no court to determine if the law had been violated and no way to enforce the decision of the court...
Yep, that is exactly what our constitution grants us. However, there are more and more regulations that are keeping us from this right as a citizen IMO.

Or the argument you make about monopoly is also backwards. Governments break up monopolies. That is one of the key areas of regulation- antitrust regulation.
You are right about our gov breaking up monopolies. But, they also allow for huge silly regulations that benefit one party over another - which should not be the role of government. They are non-profit, remember?
 
Okay, I'm a bit confused. Your beef with Obama is that he's too pro-business? He's the anti-socialist?

the left-right paradigm has you snow-balled. virtually all politicians today are corporate shills, and this certainly includes Obama.
 
Is it your argument that a company can exist without profits? If no one purchases from them it is irrelevant? Only the consumer benefits from any sold product?

What? No... Not sure what you're saying here. What I am saying is that, for example, if I live next door to a factory that makes say some part for a jet engine, and that factor is dumping waste in the water table I use, I have no recourse without government involvement because I'm not their customer.

You are right about our gov breaking up monopolies. But, they also allow for huge silly regulations that benefit one party over another - which should not be the role of government.

Lets work off of an example. Come up with a federal regulation of a corporation that doesn't serve any legitimate national interest, it just causes one private party to benefit over another.
 
What? No... Not sure what you're saying here. What I am saying is that, for example, if I live next door to a factory that makes say some part for a jet engine, and that factor is dumping waste in the water table I use, I have no recourse without government involvement because I'm not their customer.

you have no recourse without government involvement because the primary function of government is to setup the court system that allows you to sue for damages.
 
The notion that government overall favors corporations is ridiculous. Government is the only meaningful check the people have on corporations. 99.9% of corporations have never gotten a bailout or whatever. Regulation is the main interaction between government and corporations and corporations most definitely don't like being regulated.

The Obama Administration bailed out GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, and banks that were also corporations. Wall Street contributed a great deal to the Obama campaign. How can you not know or ignore all of this?

The Left is clearly telling the people one thing and yet still looking after corporations because then it is about "jobs" or 'the working man' i.e. Unions. And of course Unions are one of the biggest businesses, and rackets, in the United States and funnel their money directly to the Democratic Party.

It's a shell game going on right in front of you and you seem oblivious to it.
 
you have no recourse without government involvement because the primary function of government is to setup the court system that allows you to sue for damages.

Yeah, thats one way that government can give me recourse against a factory next door to me that is polluting- by creating a private right of action for me. But that's only a small part of the ways that government protects me against the factory. If the factory's pollution is not obvious to the untrained eye, I need government taking water samples and checking what is coming out of their smoke stack and whatnot. In order for that to be effective, I need government doing all kinds of tests of various types of chemicals. If it is a situation where the damage done doesn't kick in until 20 years later when I get cancer and it would be too late to prove that the factory did it, then I need government banning that type of behavior, not just giving me access to the courts. If it is the kind of thing where 100,000 people would be effected, but the harm to each one is relatively minor, then the odds are not very many people would sue, so we're better off with a regulatory solution than a court based one. Etc.
 
Yeah, thats one way that government can give me recourse against a factory next door to me that is polluting- by creating a private right of action for me. But that's only a small part of the ways that government protects me against the factory. If the factory's pollution is not obvious to the untrained eye, I need government taking water samples and checking what is coming out of their smoke stack and whatnot. In order for that to be effective, I need government doing all kinds of tests of various types of chemicals. If it is a situation where the damage done doesn't kick in until 20 years later when I get cancer and it would be too late to prove that the factory did it, then I need government banning that type of behavior, not just giving me access to the courts. If it is the kind of thing where 100,000 people would be effected, but the harm to each one is relatively minor, then the odds are not very many people would sue, so we're better off with a regulatory solution than a court based one. Etc.

Why do you need government to do all those things? Private industry can do it just as well and then you take them to court.
 
The Obama Administration bailed out GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, and banks that were also corporations. Wall Street contributed a great deal to the Obama campaign. How can you not know or ignore all of this?

The Left is clearly telling the people one thing and yet still looking after corporations because then it is about "jobs" or 'the working man' i.e. Unions. And of course Unions are one of the biggest businesses, and rackets, in the United States and funnel their money directly to the Democratic Party.

It's a shell game going on right in front of you and you seem oblivious to it.

Your thinking on all this is very muddled. For example, you claim that the Democrats are both pro-corporation and pro-union, but most corporations that have unions, their number one wish in the world is to be rid of the union. That's like saying that Obama is too pro-Isreal one minute then that he is too pro-Palestine the next. Secondly, those bailouts were mostly loans that have already been paid back. Third, Congress passed those bailouts, not Obama. Fourth, corporations hate regulations and obviously the Democrats are more pro-regulation and the Republicans more anti-regulation. Fifth, the bailouts of the banks happened under Bush, not Obama. Sixth, unions aren't businesses. They're non-profit.
 
Why do you need government to do all those things? Private industry can do it just as well and then you take them to court.

Again, taking them to court means turning the issue over to the government to resolve... Court isn't an alternative to government, it IS government.

But, how could private industry do those things? Private industry can't require other corporations to comply with anything or let them test anything or force them to release any information or whatever....
 
Yeah, thats one way that government can give me recourse against a factory next door to me that is polluting- by creating a private right of action for me. But that's only a small part of the ways that government protects me against the factory. If the factory's pollution is not obvious to the untrained eye, I need government taking water samples and checking what is coming out of their smoke stack and whatnot. In order for that to be effective, I need government doing all kinds of tests of various types of chemicals. If it is a situation where the damage done doesn't kick in until 20 years later when I get cancer and it would be too late to prove that the factory did it, then I need government banning that type of behavior, not just giving me access to the courts. If it is the kind of thing where 100,000 people would be effected, but the harm to each one is relatively minor, then the odds are not very many people would sue, so we're better off with a regulatory solution than a court based one. Etc.


regardless of the entity you entrust to protect you – it still boils down to if that entity has your interests in heart

You will always be at the mercy of other individuals hoping that they do what is right, not what is profitable. Whether those individuals work for the government, or work outside of the government, they are just as susceptible to greed and corruption.
 
Back
Top Bottom