I certainly recall you just piling on.

Primarily on just one topic, the Iraq War. Of course, there were enough screw-ups there, it probably seemed like a lot.

Primarily on just one topic, the Iraq War. Of course, there were enough screw-ups there, it probably seemed like a lot.

Oh, so you never disagreed with Bush on anything else and never posted on it? How about Palin?

Oh, so you never disagreed with Bush on anything else and never posted on it? How about Palin?

I disagreed with Bush on several things, but not so virulently that I had to blast him all the time.

 

On Palin ... I had an open mind on her, but she's basically a right-wing hack.

I disagreed with Bush on several things, but not so virulently that I had to blast him all the time.

 

On Palin ... I had an open mind on her, but she's basically a right-wing hack.

:lol:

 

I disagreed with Bush on several things, but my recollection of your view on him is mush more harsh then you seem to be letting on.

 

Can you give me an example of your open mindedness on Palin back then? The frenzy on her was hard to keep up with.

It is interesting to see reaction from the person occupying the office of the POTUS and of those that are anti-corporation to this recent supreme court ruling.

 

The demonization of 'big corporations' is a major theme of the current administration and has a somewhat populist ring. So it is definitely fashionable.

 

But it is interesting that most of the opposition to McCain-Feingold has come from non-corporation entities. The original law was challenged by the following group - California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. Now there an interesting mix - hyper liberal Left coasters with hyper conservative NRA and McConnell.

 

Parts of the law were struck down in 2006 by a case that was brought on by....Wisconson Right to Life. That weakening of the law was not brought on by 'big corporation' but by a freely assembled group of like minded people who felt they were being 'disenfranchised' (my term) from the political process. Actually, using contitutional verbiage - they were being denied the right to petition as a group - at least for the 60 days before an election.

 

And the most recent ruling was brought about by legal action by a non-profit group.

 

So why the demonizing of only the corporations by the POTUS? Why not demonize unions, non-profits and other freely assembled groups that want the right to speak freely, even 60 days before an election? It is these groups that have brought the legal action that has restored many rights the original McCain-Feingold removed.

 

Good background and source for some of above:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

 

The 8,000 lb elephant (and donkey) in the room is the power of the 2 national parties and the issue of 'soft money'. PACs, unions, groups, corporations, etc. can give to them freely and do so. This gives enormous and vast financial and other resources to the Republican and Demcratic parties. With their resources they can greatly help or punish a candidate in their own party. This can make the individual politician in certain states or districts where this 'national' help is needed completely beholding to the party. To me, that is dangerous. A politician always has to evalute who his true to when there is conflict of opinion and action between his/her own personal views, those of his/her voters, the country and the nation party. I would like to think that the order of his/her decision making is how I laid it out above. But with the influence of national party money in elections I am afraid the national party interests get moved to the top in terms of influencing politicians votes. I do not know what the percentage of 'party line votes' is historically. But it seems that 'party line' votes are far more common today. I contend tht is due to the need of politicians to be beholding to the national party and their resources at election time.

 

But you will never hear any politician say the problem is with the national parties. So it must be - those evil big corporations!

 

It is funny to me how people demonize big corporations, yet they think government is great. IMO, our government is the largest corporation in the US. So the people who hate big corps should hate the government even more. They create nothing they only take. Making them bigger and putting them in control of more, only means that they will take more.

 

The founding fathers had it right. They knew that government is a neccesary evil. Which is why the constitution is written in a fashion that limit's what the government can "do to you" as opposed to what it can do for you.

:lol:

 

I disagreed with Bush on several things, but my recollection of your view on him is mush more harsh then you seem to be letting on.

 

Can you give me an example of your open mindedness on Palin back then? The frenzy on her was hard to keep up with.

Her convention speech clinched it for me ...

It is funny to me how people demonize big corporations, yet they think government is great. IMO, our government is the largest corporation in the US. So the people who hate big corps should hate the government even more. They create nothing they only take. Making them bigger and putting them in control of more, only means that they will take more.

 

The founding fathers had it right. They knew that government is a neccesary evil. Which is why the constitution is written in a fashion that limit's what the government can "do to you" as opposed to what it can do for you.

 

By this reasoning, shouldn't the converse be true, also? Since conservatives are more pro-business, shouldn't they be extremely pro-government, as the biggest business?

By this reasoning, shouldn't the converse be true, also? Since conservatives are more pro-business, shouldn't they be extremely pro-government, as the biggest business?

 

No. I would guess they prefer their businesses to make money.

By this reasoning, shouldn't the converse be true, also? Since conservatives are more pro-business, shouldn't they be extremely pro-government, as the biggest business?

 

 

 

They are for what The Constitution allows, you know a Common Defense, rules of naturalization, allow people to fail through bankruptcies and such..............

No. I would guess they prefer their businesses to make money.

 

Which also goes against the original speculation. The goal of business is to make the highest profit possible. Is that the goal of government? If not, is it truly a business?

By this reasoning, shouldn't the converse be true, also? Since conservatives are more pro-business, shouldn't they be extremely pro-government, as the biggest business?

 

No, because the govenrment doesn't produce. It takes from what others produce.

Which also goes against the original speculation. The goal of business is to make the highest profit possible. Is that the goal of government? If not, is it truly a business?

 

The government doesn't have to turn a profit. it just takes more when it needs it.

No. I would guess they prefer their businesses to make money.

 

Yes I prefer businesses make money. Because businesses are people. People who spend money. To create the need for goods and services. Which creates jobs. Which creates the ability for more people to spend money. Most businesses are Joe Schmo who owns a restaurant, or a plumbing business, or a car wash, or a dentist, or a doctor. They are what makes the economy go. Government is a drain on the economy.