"Can we please talk honestly?" - great post over at the Democratic Underground

[purplechoe]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9469996


Can we please talk honestly?
Updated at 7:52 PM


To be honest this lie is killing me...

It is killing all of us. Our spirit, our hope, our belief in possibility, and our ability to have any sense of empowerment whatsoever.

Can we acknowledge the truth for our OWN selves? Face what is before our eyes without fear or self deception.

The last two years have laid bare the myth of a two party system in Washington. The Obama administration, consistently and relentlessly has governed for the corporate interests above people's interrests since their inauguration. We do not have representation in Washington that represents the peoples' interests. We simply do not. Across the board, the private corporations rule the show. I don't know how their can be any doubt whatsoever to what the American politican has become...

An employess of BP, Exxon, the Koch Brothers, the health insurance industry and the pharmaceultical companies.


I am not going to drone on and on about the evidence and reasons for this obvious and logical conclusions. You know them. And, if you want to pretend that you don't, fine pretend. The mere fact that the entire Gulf is toxic and BP just announced it will likely reinstate its dividends for next year, the banks are handing out billions to each other in bonuses for utterly decimating our economy, and the inside people who in Washtington with all the power are children of these corporations should be more then enough to show our complete loss of control over the powers that RULE us. People have been writing thesis length posts on DU and other sites for the past two years.


The elections aren't working. (And, the machines are bought and owned. How any person in a district can vote on a machine owned by a private corporation that can be hacked with pac-man by remote, and believe that there are real elections in this nation boggles the mind).

Obama is announcing bipartisan cooperation with a group of the most toxic corporate thugs just as he announced bipartisanship would rule the last two years....


Action is what is needed. Coordinated, deliberate, and bold action by the people, FOR THE people. But, if we can't have these discussion on well-populated political forums because they are detract from the politicians, we are pretty much hopeless.

OUR LOYALTY AND RESPONSIBILITY IS TO OURSELVES AND OUR NEIGHBORS, not to a POLITICIAN. NOT to a party.


My friend works in a clinic for the mentally ill in a small city in a liberal state. Every week, people are referred to a crisis care group through urgent care and they have a group intake to admit the clients into different programs. This week (& many weeks), the majority are men and the main reason that they are in crisis? Suicide attempts. Due to what cause? Loss of a job. Financial ruin. Led to divorce. Led to substance abuse. Led to stealing. Led to a suicide attempt.

Every week. In one little town...

How long are we going to keep playing the wealth's game of pretend? How long before we organize and strike back in a REAL way?

What if instead of this endless game of ping/pong pointlessly debating the corporate system and how to elect people on bought machines and bought campaigns, we started having a real dialogue...

Because it seems to me, power is taken and not given and if you are going to take power, you have to target the source of it.

Which would be the corporations....

You do know that we could shut down the entire system any day of the week, if we just had the balls or ovaries to do it.

Everyone stop paying their credit cards. Everyone stop paying their mortgages. Everyone stop playing the sick game.

So often the response is that we can't do it. But, we are starting to do it by force. That is when big change happens. You have a huge population of unemployed people, they can't pay their bills. Right now, the banks are just trying to get the money by squeezing those of us still holding on for every penny we have. More fees, higher rates, ridiculous penalities in interest for one month late fees, hidden inflation...They will bend it until it breaks. Perhaps, we should be speaking about our empowerment and strategies against this system while we still have a method of communication open to us. Perhaps, the owners of political sites can show the courage that politicians refuse to do by using their reach to help organize the people in a real way...

The people who own the government have a scortched earth methodology. Literally, look at the oil spill. Look at global warming. We are letting the wealth of this country steal us blind, utilize war as a profit method, destroy the earth, and break the everyday lives of citizens around this globe.

They own the politicians. They own the system.

You don't regain power by going after their employees in Washington.

You address the source.

You bring the corporations to their knees.

We be many and they be few.

We have to find the courage in ourselves. There isn't anyone else going to do it.

[specsaregood]

I fail to see how that is a "great post".

[A. Havnes]

At least someone out there had what it takes to say it. I'm beginning to feel the same way as this guy, minus the global warming and crap.


What if instead of this endless game of ping/pong pointlessly debating the corporate system and how to elect people on bought machines and bought campaigns, we started having a real dialogue...


Here here!

[akforme]

I read DU often and it's amazing what you read on their. They were pretty pissed about the Fed's bailout yesterday, but they blame the wrong people for it. They blame bush for appointing Bernanke and Obama for keeping him, they don't realize he's just a front man, and that Obama nd Bush didn't pick him.

[Arklatex]

He is finding the light. Still doesn't understand though that it's a group of beings, a force inherit in nature, that is responsible and not "corporations"

Semantics though.

The farce has a purpose.

To see how we react. This is how we find out, it wasn't known until it was played out. Interesting... All eyes are on you my friend! I type with a higher knowledge.

[cswake]

He is finding the light. Still doesn't understand though that it's a group of beings, a force inherit in nature, that is responsible and not "corporations"

Couldn't agree more. If there were no more corporations or billionaires on the planet, there would be other groups and individuals using the vast powers of the government for their own benefit - nothing would change. BTW, he singles out the Koch brothers, but billionaires bankroll both sides equally:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/billionaires-favorite-politicians/

[jtstellar]

they've been "finding the light" for years to no avail. what light? i don't see any. there may be some when they finally retreat from politics from seeing no chance of success for boosting their wellfare checks.

[xd9fan]

Wait till they figure out that Obama is just a 60's marxist NEG-ro that just thinks he is owed this........

oh wait the DU knows thats already

[angelatc]

they've been "finding the light" for years to no avail. what light? i don't see any. there may be some when they finally retreat from politics from seeing no chance of success for boosting their wellfare checks.

That's the bottom line. They'll sell out everything else they believe in for their monthly monthly government check. And that's exactly what their leaders want.

[akforme]

That's the bottom line. They'll sell out everything else they believe in for their monthly monthly government check. And that's exactly what their leaders want.

The irony to this is two parts, those I see exploiting welfare are usually republicans. I live in the bush, and ever republican in this town is on some type of government subsidy. The three democrats I know run the grocery store, gas station, and auto shop. Now I understand why a lot of them do it, because they want to get something from this government, but all of them have become dependent on it now.

Second, those who are actually on welfare for actual help are just as much victims as we are for paying for it. They system breeds this behavior, and to blame the people who get trapped into it is to blame all of us for being trapped. It's a shame we promote dependence on government.

That's my 2 cents.

[jtstellar]

The irony to this is two parts, those I see exploiting welfare are usually republicans. I live in the bush, and ever republican in this town is on some type of government subsidy. The three democrats I know run the grocery store, gas station, and auto shop. Now I understand why a lot of them do it, because they want to get something from this government, but all of them have become dependent on it now.

Second, those who are actually on welfare for actual help are just as much victims as we are for paying for it. They system breeds this behavior, and to blame the people who get trapped into it is to blame all of us for being trapped. It's a shame we promote dependence on government.

That's my 2 cents.
so being stupid and cheating money off others makes you a victim now. being a victim will become a new fashion trend soon then.

say what you want. i pay in, they don't. in some aspects even the corporations are still more useful than those lie-home deadbeats. at least corporations produce wealth to a certain extent and provide jobs. if a shut-in wellfare collecting deadbeat died tomorrow, nobody would care and the world will not end. ye i know people hate me for saying it, but i will say it.

[akforme]

so being stupid and cheating money off others makes you a victim now. being a victim will become a new fashion trend soon then.

say what you want. i pay in, they don't. in some aspects even the corporations are still more useful than those lie-home deadbeats. at least corporations produce wealth to a certain extent and provide jobs. if a shut-in wellfare collecting deadbeat died tomorrow, nobody would care and the world will not end. ye i know people hate me for saying it, but i will say it.

Not that i don't agree with you on most levels I just don't like attacking symptoms instead of causes. Dependency is a virus that needs to be stopped and if there is no empathy to those trapped by it, all that happens is a greater division for those in power to abuse us with.

[Deborah K]

Everyone stop paying their credit cards. Everyone stop paying their mortgages. Everyone stop playing the sick game.

Really, really bad advice.

[torchbearer]

Really, really bad advice.

good advice if everyone does it, bad advice if you are one of the few who are doing it.

[Deborah K]

good advice if everyone does it, bad advice if you are one of the few who are doing it.

I disagree wholeheartedly! We are morally obligated to pay back money we borrowed.

I would much rather see a tax revolt, than people acting irresponsibly about money they owe.

[Original_Intent]

I disagree wholeheartedly! We are morally obligated to pay back money we borrowed.

I would much rather see a tax revolt, than people acting irresponsibly about money they owe.

ah you still believe you borrowed money...

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Good post. They're starting to wake up. They're not there yet, but its a start.

[cheapseats]

Jack Nicholson, as Col. Nathan R. Jessup in A Few Good Men: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[cheapseats]

good advice if everyone does it, bad advice if you are one of the few who are doing it.

True, dat.

[torchbearer]

I disagree wholeheartedly! We are morally obligated to pay back money we borrowed.

I would much rather see a tax revolt, than people acting irresponsibly about money they owe.

only in honest lending.
if i print up some money on my copier. fake money.
i loan it to you, and tell you that you have to work to pay me back for that fake money. does that sound honest to you?

the money people are borrowing isn't really other people's savings. if that was the case, it would be honest lending of honest money. then you would be obligated to honor your arrangement.
if you found out later, though, that that money was just printed up and you are working to pay back fake money that didn't come from other people's work, but from a printing press. the game changes.

Sun Tzu- you can't fight honorably when fighting unhonorable men.

[angelatc]

ah you still believe you borrowed money...

Because obviously she's new around here, and certainly nowhere nearly as smart, as smug or even as condescending as you are.

:rolleyes:


Money: as defined by common law: a medium of exchange that is authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations.

She is right. We have moral obligations to uphold our contractual obligations. We agreed to pay back our debt in fiat dollars when we entered into the contract. Nothing changes that.

If you don't want to trade with fiat dollars, then don't. But stop derailing conversations with philosophical irrelevance.

[angelatc]

only in honest lending.
if i print up some money on my copier. fake money.
i loan it to you, and tell you that you have to work to pay me back for that fake money. does that sound honest to you?

If you told me you wanted me to pay you back in shiny rocks, I can either agree or disagree. If I agreed to pay you back in fake money, then I have an obligation to pay you back in fake money. Sounds absolutely honest to me.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

We have moral obligations to uphold our contractual obligations.

Not when said contract is fraudulent. Otherwise it would be moral to uphold a contract made under duress.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not when said contract is fraudulent. Otherwise it would be moral to uphold a contract made under duress.

Where is the duress?

Is there something preventing people from geographically organizing? No.

People have no problem telling other people such as Christians voting with their feet moving out of the middle east but we don't practice what we preach.

Is there something preventing people from facilitating trade not using dollars? No.

The only thing legal tender compels people to do is pay taxation and settle arbitrated disputes in dollars.

[ravedown]

the best thing about this post is the fact that there is only one person i can think of in Washington that addresses these concerns and speaks the truth about corporate corruption and the feds involvement etc. ..and when 2012 rolls around and even more people wake up to the facts that extend beyond party lines, there will be one candidate that will have the record and message to resonate with every pissed off person out there.
i can't wait.

[Deborah K]

only in honest lending.
if i print up some money on my copier. fake money.
i loan it to you, and tell you that you have to work to pay me back for that fake money. does that sound honest to you?

the money people are borrowing isn't really other people's savings. if that was the case, it would be honest lending of honest money. then you would be obligated to honor your arrangement.
if you found out later, though, that that money was just printed up and you are working to pay back fake money that didn't come from other people's work, but from a printing press. the game changes.

Sun Tzu- you can't fight honorably when fighting unhonorable men.

Whatever you make of it, if I enter into an agreement to take something for nothing with a promise to eventually pay for it in full, I should do that, or not borrow in the first place. It's just as dishonorable to enter into the agreement with the full intention of not paying it back.

[ChaosControl]

Holy crap I actually agree with a post (well for the most part) from the DU?

Ah where's that cold air coming from now???

[Romulus]

only in honest lending.
if i print up some money on my copier. fake money.
i loan it to you, and tell you that you have to work to pay me back for that fake money. does that sound honest to you?

the money people are borrowing isn't really other people's savings. if that was the case, it would be honest lending of honest money. then you would be obligated to honor your arrangement.
if you found out later, though, that that money was just printed up and you are working to pay back fake money that didn't come from other people's work, but from a printing press. the game changes.

Sun Tzu- you can't fight honorably when fighting unhonorable men.

+ rep

[Romulus]

Whatever you make of it, if I enter into an agreement to take something for nothing with a promise to eventually pay for it in full, I should do that, or not borrow in the first place. It's just as dishonorable to enter into the agreement with the full intention of not paying it back.

What if the agreement is made with good intentions, thinking you could pay it back, but the lender KNOWS you soon wont be able to? Or changes the rules to say 23.6% interest? Is that honorable or fraud?

[rp08orbust]

I don't see what the unsoundness of the money has to do with anything. A bank could lend you Monopoly money, and if you've agreed to return a certain amount of Monopoly money by a certain date, you are morally obligated to return it by that date.

[oyarde]

What if the agreement is made with good intentions, thinking you could pay it back, but the lender KNOWS you soon wont be able to? Or changes the rules to say 23.6% interest? Is that honorable or fraud?

Most definately not honorable .

[angelatc]

Not when said contract is fraudulent. Otherwise it would be moral to uphold a contract made under duress.



It isn't fraudulent, and duress has nothing to do with it.

We were happy to take the fiat dollars and use them to trade for something we wanted, and now we're going to cry "fraud!" when it is time to pay them back.

That's morally wrong. No matter how hard you work your soul to justify it, it is wrong.

[angelatc]

What if the agreement is made with good intentions, thinking you could pay it back, but the lender KNOWS you soon wont be able to? Or changes the rules to say 23.6% interest? Is that honorable or fraud?

If you borrow money you can't pay back, it is your fault. Nobody else's.

If you signed a contract that allows them to arbitrarily change the interest rates, you deserve to feel a little discomfort. Being stupid should hurt.

[dannno]

I fail to see how that is a "great post".

That's probably because you "fail" to consider the source of the post.

[dannno]

If you borrowed the money knowing you couldn't pay it back, they should sue you for fraud.

If you signed a contract that allows them to arbitrarily change the interest rates, you deserve to feel a little discomfort. Being stupid should hurt.

The banks are actually more responsible for many reasons, but first of all you aren't considering that THEY allowed people to sign onto the contracts knowing they couldn't pay it back. The lenders did this to collect the fees, then pass the debt onto the government (aka us)


When you lend out YOUR MONEY, it is YOUR property and YOU are responsible for obtaining the information regarding whether the person will likely pay back the loan or not. All the borrower has to do is uphold the contract.. meaning if they don't pay it back, then they follow what the contract stipulates.


When you loan somebody money, don't you feel like it is your responsibility who you loan it out to? Don't you expect, when you loan out money, that you might not get it back? That is part of the inherent risk of lending, and the responsibility falls on the lender because it is THEIR MONEY and they get to decide how they want to use it.


To say that the borrower has to go above and beyond what is stipulated in the contract simply because they "knew" they couldn't pay it back (whatever that means) doesn't make any sense.


If a borrower wants to destroy their credit by not paying back a loan, they are within their contract and have every right to do so, morally or otherwise. If you borrow money from someone without a contract, maybe a friend or relative, and verbally stipulate that you will pay the person back and there is no collateral involved, at that stage you can consider not paying the person back immoral. Otherwise what we are talking about here, the borrower is simply falling within the contract they signed, nothing wrong with that.

[roho76]

While I don't agree with NOT paying your debt, whatever the medium of exchange may be and expecting to hold on to what ever was traded with that medium, I feel as though others are forgetting the other legal side of a contract. Default. If you feel you were cheated then give them their house, car, trinket, back and don't pay another cent. This is well within your contractual rights. They can not hold a gun to your head and force you to pay for something you don't want (Obamacare excluded in this example).

It seems that in this example though they are talking about squatting in your home and not paying or legally stealing your car or what ever it may be. How many are going to stop paying as implied in this article and rightfully move out of their home and give it back to the bank? I don't think that's what they are talking about. They are pushing an entitlement mentality here and nothing less. If you borrowed fiat dollars with the expectation of returning said fiat dollars you better do it or default and have your name and financial reputation put into a box for everyone to scrutinize the next time you try to make an agreement based on fiat dollars.

Please don't take this rant as standing up for banks. I loathe banks in their modern form and they should be changed to honest money or abolished. But your stupidity is not their problem. Educate yourself. I wonder if all those who worship gold around here would say the same thing if it was gold they borrowed from the bank and still were not able to pay it back in gold?

[Romulus]

If you borrow money you can't pay back, it is your fault. Nobody else's.

If you signed a contract that allows them to arbitrarily change the interest rates, you deserve to feel a little discomfort. Being stupid should hurt.

Yes, if its legit, then I think we have an ethical obligation to adhere to a contract.

BUT are WE supposed to be ethical while the banks are not? The banks can forge and make up documents during a fraudclosure and change the terms of agreement on a whim but we are the unethical ones? Let's not pretend lenders are ethical with their side of the contract. Its money at any cost them. Even if that means lying and cheating. Not ethical.

[roho76]

Yes, if its legit, then I think we have an ethical obligation to adhere to a contract.

BUT are WE supposed to be ethical while the banks are not? The banks can forge and make up documents during a fraudclosure and change the terms of agreement on a whim but we are the unethical ones? Let's not pretend lenders are ethical with their side of the contract. Its money at any cost them. Even if that means lying and cheating. Not ethical.

If you can prove this in a court of law then you have a right to sue them for the return of your fiat monies.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

It isn't fraudulent, and duress has nothing to do with it.

It is fraud (the loan was zapped into existence when you signed for it) and you completely missed the point of duress. You stated that people are morally obligated to repay ANY contractual agreement, which would INCLUDE those made under duress.


That's morally wrong. No matter how hard you work your soul to justify it, it is wrong.

Wrong as my tax money is used to pay for the loans the Government is taking from a private entity. Its a Ponzi scheme and by definition is immoral.

[nobody's_hero]

I fail to see how that is a "great post".

Could it be the beginning of a Tea Party (by another name) splinter in the left?

[torchbearer]

Whatever you make of it, if I enter into an agreement to take something for nothing with a promise to eventually pay for it in full, I should do that, or not borrow in the first place. It's just as dishonorable to enter into the agreement with the full intention of not paying it back.

if someone defrauds you by giving your fake money, you don't have to honor the fraud.

[Deborah K]

if someone defrauds you by giving your fake money, you don't have to honor the fraud.

Key word being "giving" - as opposed to "loaning". The point is, if you enter into an aggreement with someone, you had better have full knowledge of what you are doing and you are morally obligated to live up to your end of the bargain. If we become a society that abandons our moral obligations, we deserve what we get.

[torchbearer]

Key word being "giving" - as opposed to "loaning". The point is, if you enter into an aggreement with someone, you had better have full knowledge of what you are doing and you are morally obligated to live up to your end of the bargain. If we become a society that abandons our moral obligations, we deserve what we get.

someone loans you fake money, you have no obligation to pay it back. because in reality, they have defrauded you and will be stealing from you with money that isn't earned. the immorality lies on those who have loaned to you what isn't real.
someone loans you their hard earned labor in the form of real money, to not pay it back is theft on your part.

[Deborah K]

someone loans you fake money, you have no obligation to pay it back. because in reality, they have defrauded you and will be stealing from you with money that isn't earned. the immorality lies on those who have loaned to you what isn't real.
someone loans you their hard earned labor in the form of real money, to not pay it back is theft on your part.

I understand your point, but as I stated, it works both ways. If you enter into an agreement to accept credit, fiat money, a home loan, etc., with the intent to defraud, that is an immoral act. You are no better than those you accuse of being dishonorable. I don't know of any other way to explain it.

[LibForestPaul]

It isn't fraudulent, and duress has nothing to do with it.

We were happy to take the fiat dollars and use them to trade for something we wanted, and now we're going to cry "fraud!" when it is time to pay them back.

That's morally wrong. No matter how hard you work your soul to justify it, it is wrong.

Yes, I am so happy that men with guns tell me I have to use this foreign unconstitutional paper.

Almost as honest and lawful as Nazi confiscation of Jewish business assets.

[torchbearer]

I understand your point, but as I stated, it works both ways. If you enter into an agreement to accept credit, fiat money, a home loan, etc., with the intent to defraud, that is an immoral act. You are no better than those you accuse of being dishonorable. I don't know of any other way to explain it.

to honor a fraud is to continue to be a victim. to stop being a victim doesn't make you dishonorable.

[torchbearer]

the banks are stealing your life, your time, your wealth because they are using fake money to put you in an obligation to pay back something they didn't have to give.

[Deborah K]

the banks are stealing your life, your time, your wealth because they are using fake money to put you in an obligation to pay back something they didn't have to give.

Torch, I'm more concerned about the illegal confiscation of wages through taxation. To be sure, our monetary system is set up with no hard backing, only the faith of the public, but that does not give people the right to default on their loans.

[Ninja Homer]

I understand your point, but as I stated, it works both ways. If you enter into an agreement to accept credit, fiat money, a home loan, etc., with the intent to defraud, that is an immoral act. You are no better than those you accuse of being dishonorable. I don't know of any other way to explain it.

But the banks are the ones intending to defraud. Not only is it immoral, it's illegal. It's the law that all contracts for money must be for real money, not imaginary money that isn't created yet. The consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) must be real, and it is just imaginary until after somebody signs the loan agreement.

Almost all bank loans fail to have real consideration, so by law, these contracts are null and void.

[Deborah K]

But the banks are the ones intending to defraud. Not only is it immoral, it's illegal. It's the law that all contracts for money must be for real money, not imaginary money that isn't created yet. The consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) must be real, and it is just imaginary until after somebody signs the loan agreement.

Almost all bank loans fail to have real consideration, so by law, these contracts are null and void.

If you think the bank is defrauding you, then don't enter into an agreement with them. If you do, with the intention to default, then you are equally as dishonorable.

[Ninja Homer]

If you think the bank is defrauding you, then don't enter into an agreement with them. If you do, with the intention to default, then you are equally as dishonorable.

I'd agree that if you enter into a contract with the intention to default, it would be equally dishonorable. I don't think anybody was talking about getting new loans just to default on them... at least I wasn't.

My point was that it isn't really even legally defaulting. Because the bank's end of the contract doesn't have real consideration, it's as if the contract never existed.

I know that there was at least one case that was won in Minnesota because of this. The man kept his house, and was free of the mortgage. If I remember right, the judge that ruled on it was assassinated a couple months later. I'll look for a link.

Edit: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/113358 or just google "Credit River Decision"

[tremendoustie]

Then you've got the fact that the major banks have literally robbed you already, using the government ....

[Clairvoyant]

I disagree wholeheartedly! We are morally obligated to pay back money we borrowed.

I would much rather see a tax revolt, than people acting irresponsibly about money they owe.

Both would be best actually, attack them on two fronts.

[tremendoustie]

A tax revolt would be fantastic. I think people may be too scared though.

I think step 1 would have to be the growth of local economies (i.e. agorism). You can't really revolt on federal income tax when you're working for a major corporation.

[Clairvoyant]

A tax revolt would be fantastic. I think people may be too scared though.

I think step 1 would have to be the growth of local economies (i.e. agorism). You can't really revolt on federal income tax when you're working for a major corporation.

Which is just as dangerous as a tax revolt in city areas.

[torchbearer]

A tax revolt would be fantastic. I think people may be too scared though.

I think step 1 would have to be the growth of local economies (i.e. agorism). You can't really revolt on federal income tax when you're working for a major corporation.

local libertarians in lafayette, louisiana now have a group of local businesses that accept silver for goods and services. i consider that agorism, and i think we will see more of it as the money is destroyed.

[Deborah K]

A tax revolt would be fantastic. I think people may be too scared though.

I think step 1 would have to be the growth of local economies (i.e. agorism). You can't really revolt on federal income tax when you're working for a major corporation.

There are ways to do it.

[Captain Shays]

The collectivists will NEVER get it so long as they blame "evil corporations" for buying our elected representatives and not the elected representatives for allowing themselves to be bought.

Politicians have a moral and legal responsibility to do the work of the people. If they would uphold the Constitution they wouldn't be allowed to sell tax breaks, subsidies, grants, no bid contracts, incentives, investments or legislation. In other words, they would have nothing to sell. If they have nothing to sell, then those evil wicked corporations would have nothing to buy.

I would say that "liberals" just don't get it. Glenn Beck calls them all "progressives".

They are what they are. Collectivists. It knows no party. It's the only label that has definitions that aren't nebulous, and nondescript and changeable from person to person, from day to day, week to week, or region to region. Collectivism is the antithesis of individualism and there can be no compromise between the two philosophies. Period.

[Deborah K]

The collectivists will NEVER get it so long as they blame "evil corporations" for buying our elected representatives and not the elected representatives for allowing themselves to be bought.

Politicians have a moral and legal responsibility to do the work of the people. If they would uphold the Constitution they wouldn't be allowed to sell tax breaks, subsidies, grants, no bid contracts, incentives, investments or legislation. In other words, they would have nothing to sell. If they have nothing to sell, then those evil wicked corporations would have nothing to buy.

I would say that "liberals" just don't get it. Glenn Beck calls them all "progressives".

They are what they are. Collectivists. It knows no party. It's the only label that has definitions that aren't nebulous, and nondescript and changeable from person to person, from day to day, week to week, or region to region. Collectivism is the antithesis of individualism and there can be no compromise between the two philosophies. Period.

Bravo!! My sentiments exactly. +rep!

[TexanRudeBoy]

So I take it that poster got banned rather swiftly.