Teresa

What in hades are you on about? Are you on meth, too? What does any of this have to do with Libertarianism??

... put the coffee down - and slowly walk away ...

This jerk is doing drugs, running guns, and is in complete breach of contract with his employees! And you lay this behavior on the feet of Libertarians?!? Just where do you get off? I have two words for you... (I'll let you figure that out on your own).

Wake up, already. You obviously believe that libertarians want this type of behavior to run rampant through the country - nay, the world! Ahh - what a glorious world it would be, too. We could go back to ruling by might and intimidation, the way it was meant to be. Screw the little guy.

ROFLMAO! Sure, we all want that.

In all seriousness, you have absolutely no - NO - idea what you're talking about. That's ok, though. You may get your precious Clinton back in the White House and then heaven help us! Better yet, reincarnate Stalin and put him in charge. oooohh!! Not Stalin - Castro! Yeah, that's the ticket. He'd have us fixed up in no time! I can't wait...

KMLA! - I'm sure you can figure that out, your a smart girl (although your smarts are terribly misplaced).

Mark,

Lessee, Intentionally givening a big fat middle finger to each and every federal requirment that "Libertarians" bitch about every time I'm unluck enough to be stuck in a conversation with one (or rather a one-sided lecture with one. They have an annoying habit of turning purple, shouting, putting their fingers in my faces and getting spittle all over me if I try to talk...

...paying cash to apparently to avoid taxes...

...thwarting federal drug laws...

...thwarting gun laws...

Seriously, Mark, what DOESN'T this have to do with libertarianism? The only thing missing here is a "barter" scheme, but the investigation is in it's infancy.

Without the federal government checks you hate so much, all of his behavior would be perfectly acceptable. After all, he paid them for their time right? In cash. Everything else he has denied them they only get because of the government interferance you hate so much and think shouldn't exsist. the ONLY things that he has screwed his employees out of are the "nanny state" benefits you think should not be. This guy should be your hero!

Oh, and I KNOW you know my posting record about Clinton (you've commented extensivly about how you agree with me about Clinton), so don't be such a dishonest bastard.

Anyway, having fun? You know I made this post just for you. :-)

I know you did make for me, but OMG. Do you have to be so damned blatantly ignorant? I know you're not, but it's a good act.

You are so far off base about libertarians. Ok, there ARE kooks out there. There are kooks in every political party.

Look, this guy had a contract with his employees and with the state and federal governments. He's breached all those contracts in serious fashion.

A question since I don't know too many details:
Did he pay all employees in cash? If he did, did he provide a statement breaking down the taxes, insurance payments, etc? You know - a pay stub. If he did pay in cash and did not provide such a statement - then these employees should have run - not walked - to the BBB, the local and states Attorney Generals, and anywhere else they could think of to report this guy. I'm not saying the deserve what they got if they didn't, but it had to seem "fishy" getting paid in such a manner.

I run a business myself. I completely follow every letter of the law (local, state, fed) pertaining to it's running. And I'm a libertarian. This guy is just a selfish bastard who wants what he wants and everyone else be damned. He's an asshole that deserves what's comming to him.

I notice you rebuffed my Clinton reference, but not Stalin or Castro...

If it comes down to Clinton and Mitt or Gulianni (or any [R] for that matter) - come on... We both know who gets your vote.

Mark,

Didn't realize that I HAD to rebuff Stalin and Castro. Obviosly, I've never come out in favor any anti-intellectual totolitarians.

Besides, what do they have to do with liberalism? Haven't you noticed that some of the most outspoken "neocons" are "reformed" Leninists and Trotskyiets *cough Hitchens Cough*?

You might have had a hint of a shadow of something it you'd said Marx, because Marx was just a scotch-hop square away from Thomas Paine, with industrialism added in...at least in foundational assumptions and sentiments if not conclusions.

Personally, if it comes down to Clinton or Romney, I'm leaning toward "throwing my vote away" on a third party candidate...whoever seems least likely to actually win. Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time. I've voted both "libertarian" and "green" before. Not because I wanted them to win, but because I couldn't bring myself to do anything else. We'll see. November of '08 is a long way off.

Maybe I'll write in Bill and Opus.

You didn't. It was just rhetorical. Although I didn't know of your affinity for Marx.

Bill and Opus - great! I like that. Well, at least neither of us votes for someone just because we think they'll win. However, I DO vote for people I'd like to win.

I need to bookmark this page for quoting in the future. I can see it now - But Tereasa you said, and I quote "I've voted ...[libertarian]... before." Oh I can't wait! Could you say it again so I can remove the "..." - it looks suspicious.

Mark,

I got the impression that the cash payments came AFTER his legal troubles and the store closings began, and he just wasn't doing ANY paperwork of any kind. But maybe Bob can elaborate. The case is still developing.

I like that you admit that there ARE kooks out there...but seriously, don't you think that's a bit of an understatement? I was very interested in the libertarian philosphy until I got to know some real-life libertarians, and realized that too many of them just didn't get enough play-acting at "cowboys and indians" when they were children.

If they'd just built a couple of forts, held some mock hangings of bank robbers, and played a dozen or so games of "flinch" their sense of fantasy adventure in a wild west landscape would have been satisfied.

I mean, I'm a Heinlein fan for crissakes. I live immersed in science fiction fandom. My husband is a computer nerd guru guy. I encounter people who self-identify as libertarians on a regular basis. MY FAVORITE TV SHOW IS FIREFLY! Come on. I'm not unsympathetic to the basic sentiments of Libertarianism. Yet probably 80% of them freak me the hell out because they are just downright anti-social.

Ok, just for clarity sake, Shinders employees were getting checks until about the 9th of July. That's when things really hit the wall. Speciffically Robert locked the VP and the head of accounts payable out of the corporate accounts. The reason for this is because they refused to pay his personal taxes out of the corporate accounts. The reason for THAT was because that was where the employees were getting their paychecks from and, according to the head of accounts payable lady, there was just enough money in there for one final round of paychecks. Most of the staff interpreted what followed as termination of their employment. The smart ones asked for and recieved letters of termination. A few stuck around for reasons I can't and won't speculate upon. Robert bullied a few back to work and is now actively screwing with the employment benefits of the rest.The ones who either stayed or were strong-armed back are getting paid cash. Paying your employees cash IS legal. Not paying the taxes and witholding is NOT.

So that's that. I'm not getting into the middle of a debate over what, if anything this mess has to do with Libertarianism. Though I will say that I always thought that the general philosophy of the party was summed up in the phrase "Do whatever you want. If you manage to hurt someone in the process, there'll be consequences and you won't like them."

For my part I don't think either the Dems or the Pubs have it right. I was always under the impression that the purpose of good government was to enforce a social contract that basically came down to personal liberty tempered with personal responsibility while providing certain essential services that most folks couldn't be provide for themselves or just flat shouldn't be privatized at all like the various nice people in the emergency services proffessions. And part of that, it seems to me should involve landing hard with both feet on abusive employers like Rob-ooo did I mention the nice lady and the unemployment office assured me they were aware of his antics and were, and I qoute "Gathering evidence against him.?" Sparkly.- and Wal-Mart since business owners, by definition tend to have greater resources than the rank and file staffers and I for one would file predatory employers under "enemies foreign and domestic" . And from where I sit, 35 years and counting of being one of the rank and file it doesn't seem like either the Red Team OR the Blue Team could be described as particularly zealous in the protection of regular folks from the suited goons of corporate America. But that's just me.
Cheers!

Thanks for the info, Bob. This guy certainly deserves what's comming his way.

I think your phrase summing up the libertarian philosophy is close to the mark. "Whatever" is very broad, though. You can't just stuff anything you want into that blank.

As for the "gathering evidence against him" - what would you have them do, arrest him without evidence or due process? Do that and he get's away with his shenanigans. I'm pretty sure they will "be landing hard with both feet on" Robert, but it must be done within the confines due process.

I must say I have a very real problem understanding your and Teresa's issues with corporate America. Sure, there are "suited goons" in corporate society. But I must say, you seem to want to put your trust in a system that has bigger, badder, meaner, and slicker "goons." The guys in Washington have WAY more power over us than corporate American could even hope to imagine. Put your trust in government at your own peril.

Mark,

What are you talking about? Bob was CELEBRATING the fact that they are gathering evidence...not lamenting it? WTF?

Never, in any of his posts here has Bob complained about due process or ever implied that he wanted to short circuit it. What a weird interpretation of his comment.

I'm laughing at your assertion that the government has more power over us than corporations. Last I heard, we had a vote in government. You don't get that from corporations. The key, as the founders who were pro-constitution saw it, was "constant vigilance" as in OVERSIGHT as in, paying attention and demanding that your government do it's fucking job, not to take the job of government away from it and hand it over to mega-corps who have no loyalty or interest in our country except backing up their business practices with OUR millitary.

Look at the effect of corporatism on our country. It has achieved the evils that the aristocracy achieved that LEAD to the American Revolution. Expensive wars to support the interests of a few people who are the ruling elite of the country, for instance, parasitic elites that do NOTHING, but still live off the productivity of society (hello Paris Hilton.) A growing desperation in the lower classes as they work harder and harder to compete with each other for the few resources that haven't been put a lock on by the upper classes. And you want to take MORE government power and give it to them?

Of course, Madison also wrote extensivly about the pernicious effect on freedom that would come from the States and individuals constantly trying to usurp the proper powers of the central government, and how carefully THAT had to be guarded against or the chaos and anarchy under the articles of confederation would return,and America would lose it's freedom. Did that mean he wanted the central government to be all-powerful? No, but he wanted the government to have the power to protect people from threats to their liberty, which included the rich, the "capitalists" (slightly different shade of meaning that it has today) and the local governments that they might be able to dominate.

It's pretty clear that the intention was a government strong enough to protect us, under our control and guidence. The fact that most Americans have abdicated that control is not grounds for dismanteling the government, it should ba a call to involvment. Your constant kvetching about the government being some far-off boogy-man that has nothing to do with us is precicely the wrong approach. Claim ownership of it instead.

But if you read the right-wing religious nuts, you will understand that this sense of distance and lack of control and intrusivness of the government is actually a well-articulated strategy. Citizen apathy is a desired outcome that has been actively cultivated and celebrated by the religious right. They actually just come right out and say it. And people still buy the whole line. Sad.

The government can't do anything to us that we don't cause ourselves by not doing our damned jobs as citizens. One is to distrust the government enough to pay attention and participate. Not to write it off as a bad idea. If most people did that, the government would always be weaker than the people because that was the whole reason behind "Of the people, by the people and for the people".

Calling for it's destruction is just a damned lazy response.

Teresa

Why don't you let Bob speak for himself? Celebrating due process? Right. How am I supposed to take this: "did I mention the nice lady and the unemployment office assured me they were aware of his antics and were, and I qoute "Gathering evidence against him.?" Sparkly." He add the sarcastic comment "Sparkly" - not me. Sorry, to me and any intelligent person reading that statement, it seems clear that Bob was a little ticked off that nothing had been done yet. Sorry, his comments clearly indicate that he thought they weren't doing enough!

As for the rest of your comments - you are severely twisted! You get your vote in corporate America, too, dear. It's called your wallet. And without it, corporations wouldn't exist. So now corporations are "backing up their business practices with OUR military" ??? Last I checked, it was our government that ran the military. So now the "expensive wars" are the fault of corporations? Funny, I thought it was because of poor foreign policy and bad diplomacy by our government. Corporations do not have the power to start wars. Are you sure you're not high??

I don't know where you got the idea that I thought the government was "some far-off boogy-man that has nothing to do with us." I AM trying to claim ownership. We need to take control back from these clowns. If corporations are getting governmental powers, just who do you think is giving it to them? It's not us, it's the people in government!

I am certainly not, nor have I ever, written government off as a bad idea. You constantly misrepresent my writings. I completely agree with you "if most people did [participate], the government would always be weaker than the people" and that is the way it should be.

Look - fixing corporations is much easier than it sounds. You don't like what the corporation is doing? Don't buy their shit. You don't like the way a corporation treats it's employees? Don't take their shit. Do something about it. Quit! Get another job. Start your own corporation. - AND - don't buy their shit! You don't buy their shit - and the corporation dries up and blows away.

I am not - or have I ever - called for the destruction of our government - only a reduction in it's size and power. I really don't understand your twisted logic in all of this. I'm not buying your shit.

Mark, couple things here.

First; how about some manners. I don't know how Trees took it but from where I sat you came across pretty snarky. Asking if she's high? I'm sorry, I didn't know it was leave your manners at the door day. Wish someone had told me. I'd have worn a hat. Seriously dude, you're an adult. Adults are supposed to have a basic grasp of manners. Let's roll with that shall we?

Second; Of the two of you, Trees nailed it when discussing my comments. Bullseye. You did not. I WAS in fact celebrating the fact that due process is taking place and yet more legal heat is being lit under Roberts drug addled backside. So do me a favor and don't go tossing around "He clearly...." when you can neither read my mind nor hear the tone of my words. Especially since we've never so much as met for coffee you and I so you'll excuse me if I question your expertise in the field of "What Bob Really Means".

Movin right along

Hmmm put my trust in corporations. Would these be the same nice people who routinely use their financial resources to subvert the government? The same ones who have, in the past hired thugs to bust up unions and even now are profoundly against organisations that empower the working class? Would this also be the same group of people who typically fight to deny separated employees unemployment benefits even though the money has already been paid into the system? The same ones who, when a staffer is injured try to intimidate said injured party into going to a doctor who is in the company's pocket and will almost invariably diagnose an injured employee as fit to work when other medical proffessionals who are not affiliated with the company will say the opposite? Would you have me put my trust in a group of people who seek to deny those who were hurt in the course of generating wealth for them long term medical care and try to force the injured party back to work by playing a waiting game and delaying the legal process?

Exactly how much of my trust should I give to people who try to deny those who work for them a living wage? Or, in the case of WalMart are notorious for such abusive practices as making people work off the clock, locking them in for overnights and denying them medical insurance by playing games with their hours when they become elligible? Should I place my faith in a species of creature that is at least partly responsible for us getting into a war with a country that never directly threatened us? I mean seriously, you can't find it coincidental that the current administration is deeply connected to the oil and gas industries and we just happen to have invaded a nation with huge oil and gas resources and the very companies that our so-called leaders are most closely tied to are the ones getting no-bid onctracts over there? Sure three thousand American kids are dead and God know how many more crippled for life but hey you can't make an omlette right?

While I'm trusting corporate America should I trust the people who lay off working class individuals just like me in the thousands, not because they suffered a net loss for the fiscal quarter but because they didn't make what they percieve as a large enough profit over and above what they made the previous quarter? Or maybe I should rest easy in the knowledge that the nice men and women who have sent everything from manufacturing to customer service and collection agency jobs to third world nations so that they can make a few extra dollars have the interests of me, a blue collar working man uppermost in their mind.

I could go on but I think I've made my point. You say it's easy. Don't work for a corporation who's practices you don't like. You're right, not working is easy. SURIVING when you aren't working is a bit tougher. Ditto not buying their products. It's the easiest thing in the world to not go shopping. Surviving without food, medicine-oo! lets not forget the way American companies don't like us buying cheaper meds in Canada!- and clothing to name just a couple items? Surprisingly less easy. Who knew?

Starting your own corporation. Hmmm. Given that most working class people are living check to check, where precisely do you suggest they get the resources to create their own corporation, pay the staff and the rest of the overhead and, oh yeah, buy the odd bit of grocceries while they wait the two years that I understand is typical for most new businesses that don't tank outright to start turning a profit?

Personally, I don't put much trust in either the government or the corps. I have seen too much in my time to be so naive. But given a choice in who I trust MORE I typically trust the government more if only because when elected officals screw me and mine over I can will and do get up off my lazy American backside and do my part to vote the bastards out of office. Having gotten screwed HARD in a number of instances by employers I can tell you first hand that putting the screws to the corps is more than a wee bit trickier. Simple fact is, there is less accountability for abuses by business than there is for abuses by government in this country. When you couple that with a mentality of "Profit first, human needs second" you get the mess we see every day. And reducing the size and power of our government means reducing the size and power of the people whose job it is to fight for people like me and mine. So, while I very much want the government to keep its big fat warty schnozz OUT of my bedroom-or living room depending on how big a party we're talking about hehehe-, place of worship and gun cabinet to name but three, I absoloutely want the government big enough and powerful enough to put deep in check those who would mistreat me and people like me in the name of a few extra bucks.

Bottom line Mark, a working man trusting corporate America to do whats right is a lot like a seal trusting an Orca to plan the lunch menu.

Mark,

"Why don't you let Bob speak for himself?"

Um... because it's my venue, and when I see a need for moderation I feel like I have a right to step in and provide it? Because he's dealing with a big crappy stressful situation in his personal life and I feel like maybe it would be helpful for me, as a friend, to step in and point out that you are off-base so that he doesn't have to take time out of his busy schedule to deal with your crap?

Anyone with half a brain could see that he was happy that there was an investigation going on, and it was imminant that this guy was going to get what's coming to him. There was absolutely no reason to interpret the "Sparkly" as sarcatic at all in that context. You are so clueless and off-base with what Bob wrote that it really clarifies for me how you could so completely misconstrue the Constitution and the writings of the founders. Here I thought it was because you hadn't actually read any of their writings, but now I understand that you probably had. you just thought that when Madison wrote about the need for a strong and viggerous central government when explaining his contributions to the Constitution, you thought he was being derogatory and sarcastic! I see now. It all makes sense.

And just so your not confused, this is MY space. I maintain it. I pay for it. Therefore, if someone is attacking another commenter because they clearly misunderstood the other persons intent I get to fucking say something to clarify it. If you don't like it, you can go hide on your own anonymous little hole and whine and cry about it to yourself.
Either way, your choice. You don't want to buy my shit? Don't. Like I give a crap. You can't even use your real name much less one shred of identifying information. Like I think for a minute you have the courage of your convictions. You can't even put your name behind them. It's your right to sound off anonymously, but it's my right to have zero respect for that, especially when you can't even follow a straightforward statment expressing approval for the direction of an investigation, and somehow manage to turn it into a condemnation of due process.

Call me crazy, but that's my right as the owner of this space. Oh wait! you DID call me crazy. and a Commie, and an America-hater, and a druggie and twisted. In the past, I've always just assumed that you were kidding, and returned the jokes but I'm beginning to wonder.

Strangely, I don't feel the need to apologize for "misrepresenting" your writings.

You want to have your writings represented? Then clarify. Instead of using extremely general ideological shorthand. See, when you do that without clarifying, people resort to referancing the actual people who made up and popularized the ideological shorthand. Then you just look like an ass when you say "I've never even heard of that guy! What are you talking about? You're misrepresenting me! and THEN fail to clarify with a specific rational case supporting your position and differentiating it from the one it's been associated with.

Start with "shrinking the federal government back to it's original constitutional bouondaries" Since you reject the interpretation of the general language, and employ "strict constructivism" agruments, I assumed that you were in the Roy Moore, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed camp. You claim not to be. And accuse me of "misreprenting you" Then for God's sake show how you are not in their camp. Explain your position rather than leaving me to grope around in the dark and then accusing me of dishonesty.

Also, you can explain how the libertarian drive to privatize government services at every opportunity is NOT handing over government power to private corporations, how eliminating OSHA would be good for workers, how eliminating the Federal reserve will add stability to our economy, how increasingly transferring millitary functions to private security firms is adding to the civillian oversight and control of our millitary, how for-profit privatization of our prison system has had NO effect on the politics of criminal justice, and has made no contribution to the rising percentage of our population that are imprisioned.

Also, you can explain how to reconcile all of the denigration of the libertarians for boycotts as "interferance in the free market" with your assertion that if you don't like what corporations are doing you should "not buy their shit". and then you can explain how organizations that try to help you understand what corporations are doing and (negotiate the complex relationships that they hide behind) are denounced as "communist" by organizations that claim to be dedicated to the free market. And then you can tell me that Libertarian shining stars like the "Center for consumer freedom" are protecting the "free market" and "personal responsibility" by fighting tooth and nail any attempt by the Federal Government to require that they provide accurate information that people need to make informed decisions.

Just for a start. You want to be understood? MAKE YOURSELF UNDERSTOOD. I won't dedicate anymore time to trying to hit a moving target in the dark, and then taking abuse for missing.

Bob

I sincerely apologize for my manners. Teresa and I recently had a very snarky thread going and I guess it spilled into this one. I'm sure she'll tell you that my behavior is normally much better. Teresa does have a way of striking a nerve in me (which is why I check this site routinely), and this topic is one of them. I normally don't curse. I apologize to you both. My bad.

Thank you for stating "Personally, I don't put much trust in either the government or the corps." I was going to take your words and point them directly at the government instead of corporations. I'm sure you understand that it could easily be done.

The part of government I don't like the most is how blatantly corrupt (I know - corps, too. You might as well just apply all this to corps as well) the government has become without so much as a peep from our press or anyone else for that matter. The people we do hear from are so completely beat about the head and shoulders by the press, government, private organizations, etc. that it makes others think twice about speaking up. Soon, I believe in my kid's lifetime, there will be a mini-revolution in this country that will change things drastically. I hope for the better.

Look, I see capitalism as the main reason the country became so great. Yes, it has had problems. Yes, it still has problems. Corporations and government have very much in common. The more power they get, the more they want (and get). Power is the mother of more power!

What I see from your position, though, is that you want to give more and more power to the government willingly. When the government gets power, it doesn't give it back! Vote all you want, while you can. I'd rather limit the scope of government to do only those items which are enumerated in the constitution. I understand your position. I just don't agree with it. I'd rather use my wallet and my wits to fight the corporations. Waving your cash in the face of a loaded weapon won't solve the problem.

Teresa

I apologize for being so rough. Truly. As for my intrepretation of the "Sparkly" comment, I've seen comments like that many times. Nearly everyone of them is sarcastic. Obviously, I got it wrong.

Your views on corporations more fanatical than anyone I know of. To quote you: "I'm laughing at your assertion that the government has more power over us than corporations. Last I heard, we had a vote in government. You don't get that from corporations. The key, as the founders who were pro-constitution saw it, was "constant vigilance" as in OVERSIGHT as in, paying attention and demanding that your government do it's fucking job, not to take the job of government away from it and hand it over to mega-corps who have no loyalty or interest in our country except backing up their business practices with OUR millitary.

Look at the effect of corporatism on our country. It has achieved the evils that the aristocracy achieved that LEAD to the American Revolution. Expensive wars to support the interests of a few people who are the ruling elite of the country, for instance, parasitic elites that do NOTHING, but still live off the productivity of society (hello Paris Hilton.) A growing desperation in the lower classes as they work harder and harder to compete with each other for the few resources that haven't been put a lock on by the upper classes. And you want to take MORE government power and give it to them?"

I'm sorry but - like it or not - these thoughts are just plain loony! It's hard to take any of it seriously. It's so outlandish that I feel the need to be outlandish in my replies to help you see just how crazy you sound.

As for being anonymous, Mark is my real first name. Do you display email addresses? I don't provide it because you don't explicitly state that it will not be posted. I'll gladly provide it as long as it does not become public. I get enough spam as it is...

As for making myself understood. I'll try to do better. However, just because I don't know of someone that you reference doesn't mean I am being represented clearly when you use them to counter one of my points. I stay "in touch" with current events more than probably 95% of the population - sadly. Looking at your posts and knowledge of some topics, I'd have to estimate that your "in touch" meter is pegging 99.5% If you can't understand my points then I certainly hold some responsibility for that. That you simply refuse to understand others is not my fault.

For starters, I'll be getting information on removing the Federal Reserve and how that will stabilize our economy. I'll have my report shortly.

Mark,

Thanks for the apology. WRT the Federal Reserve, I will be looking forward to it. I don't display e-mail addresses. It took me a little while to find the page where I could turn them off, but as soon as I figured out how to do it, I did. I have occasionally wished that I could view more of your writings as it might shed some light on the development of you ideas, for instance. It makes it easier here, for instance if you wonder how I came to a conclusion, you can do a search for a keyword and find all of my posts on a subject and read a couple to get the gist. If you are interested. If I don't support a given assertion in the body of a post, it's probably because I already hashed it to death on other posts, and assume (since most people who comment here have been here for a VERY long time)that nobody wants to hear it again.

You don't think corporations have more power over us that the government does? If the government has built in ways for us to fight any attempts it makes to censor us for instance.

Look at AT&T, just as a fer instance. They did a web cast of a Pearl Jam concert and censored lyrics that were critical of Bush. You can say "Just don't buy AT&T's shit then". OK, but not everythiing that is AT&T's shit has ST&T's brand on it. So if you want to not byu AT&T's shit, you have to track down and avoid everything sold by every company they own.

But in the first place, you have to find out that they even censored the material in the first place.

And add to that the fact that some people CAN'T boycott AT&T...like soldiers in Iraq who can only call home on AT&T because that's the only provider available..and you start to see the "free market" idea dissolve. I'd have a much easier time fighting government censorship with my vote than corporate censorship with my wallet.

Mark, a couple things. First off, while I appreciate the apology your tendency to continue being discourteous to Trees who is and has been a very good friend of mine for most of a decade now makes me doubt it's sincerity.

Second, we are living in a country where the executive branch is deeply involved with the oil and gas industries. And we just happen to be at war with a country that never attacked us and has massive resources in those areas. But I'm sure it's a coincidence.

You mock her assertion that we live in a society that does not support a tiny and in many cases non-productive elite on the backs of and at the expense of the working majority. Tell me exactly who benefits from jobs being sent overseas? Remind me again who controls most of the wealth in this country. And which class of individual is getting first hand experience with IEDs in third world ratholes while which other class sits back and cashes in.

You mention the silence of the media on government abuses. That is because the media is owned by corporations. Corporations want their message heard and a sympathetic portrayal of those who further their goals. So here in America you don't get real journalism any more. You get pandering. You get the "news" focusing mostly on which celebrity is doing what instead of which company or government agency is stepping on what bunch of people. You get minimalized coverage of protests against predatory behaviors and unscrupulousactions because if the "news" agency themselves doesn't kill a story because it would make a friendly politician look bad the advertisers come along and hold a financial gun to their heads if they don't report what they want reported. Meanwhile over on the foreign news markets its a whole nother ball game. So yes, the corps ARE pulling the strings in this country and at the rate things are going we are rapidly heading for either a second revoloution or a serf state where the majority of us are little better than chattel. Curious, am I the only one who remembers seeing a news bit a few months ago about Target or somesuch actively fighting against a living wage bill being passed?And lets not even get into who it is that fights so hard to put seriously limiting caps on the amount companies can get sued for or penalized by the government when something goes wrong either with their products or some aspect of the manufacturing process and people get dead or maimed or the environment gets trashed. But yeah, we need less government "interferance" in the business world.

Do yourself a favor Mark. Go to the store and find the book "Heroes Die". It talks about a future in which society has become a corporate caste-based system and the rank and file have zero rights. Look around at the direction we're heading and tell me honestly that such a thing isn't plausible.

Bob, are you referring to the "loony" comment? Sorry, I mean every word of it - that's just being honest. It has nothing to do with being mean spirited or an insincere apology. I truly am sorry for my earlier bad manners.

You said, "Second, we are living in a country where the executive branch is deeply involved with the oil and gas industries. And we just happen to be at war with a country that never attacked us and has massive resources in those areas." You blame corporations. I blame government. Congress has the power to oversee and reverse/punish such decisions, yet it failed.

Who benefits from jobs going overseas? Well, the people overseas, of course! ;) Cheap shot, but I couldn't help myself. Look, there's a lot of reasons some jobs are moving overseas. Nearly all of them can be covered in Economics 101. It mostly because it's the natural evolution of business. When the majority of the world nears our standard of living (i.e. production costs are just as high there as here), then things will change.

Remind you of who controls the wealth in this country? You're kidding, right? The government does. The budget is over 8 trillion! That's how many zeros? What corporation do you know of with that kind of power? Heck, the oil companies do have power, like you say. But they only make around .08 per gallon in profits. You say that's bogus, fine - let's double it just for fun. poof! They make .16 per gallon in profits. How much profit does the government make on a gallon of gas, gas they have absolutely no investment in (didn't drill for it, didn't transport it, didn't produce it)? Over .50 my friend. THAT's power. And that's just one example.

Do we need to do something about corrupt corporations? Yup! We sure do. It'll never happen, though, unless we regain control of our government first. We are not in control - haven't been since the turn of the 20th century. If the corporations are currently running our government - and I agree that a strong case could be made for that - then giving more power to the feds is just giving more control to corporations. Something has to give, I believe it will, and well before the "Heroes Die" scenario comes to fruition.

yeah Bob!


what makes you think the government hass a right to tax oil and gas? Huh? Did the government negotiate trade agreements to the countries we buy the oil from? Did it give government aid to the governments of those countries so that they could develop the infrastructure to support our companies operations to extract the oil? Did the government help train the police and the millitaries of those countries to put down insurrections and disruptions so that operations could continue uninterrupted?

Oh. They did? huh. never mind.

Anyway, see, Bob,

The important thing to remember is that if the corporations are running the government with their money, then if we just take away the government's power the corporations will turn into fluffy bunnies and give up their quest for power.

Don't you see how much more sense that makes than actually holding the government accountable to use it's power to protect us from predatory corporations?

I'm surprised that you can't see the logic here.

I'm surprised that you can't see the logic here.
***********

I'm sorry Theresa but if I could fit my head that far up my own a$$ I'd be a sideshow performer and not a retail clerk.

Teresa and Bob

Another important point to remember is if the corporations are running the government with their money, then giving the government more power will fix everything. The government, with more power, won't use that power to further empower corporations and take more of the citizens rights away, they'll do just the opposite.

Hold the government accountable to use it's power to protect us from predatory corporations... What?? According to you the corps ARE the government. I mean, if they are running the government, then they really ARE the government. We can't even get our government to hold itself accountable to manage even their expense accounts in an ehtical manner. You must be joking.

About the gas tax. I never said the government didn't have a right to tax oil and gas. I said it was excessive. As for the trade agreements, aid, and training. Well, apart from being unconstitutional, all of it would be unnecessary IF WE PULLED THE OIL FROM OUR OWN SOIL! We can't because of government regulations (or is that really a corporate regulation). Don't feed me that line of BS.

Speaking to you guys is like talking to six year olds. You hear, but you don't listen.

We definitely want the same thing - responsible government. But you see the path to that has giving them more and more power and money. That's like giving a child a gun and telling them to be nice and share the bullets. They'll get shared alright...

Mark,

But the solution I am proposing is actually that we USE THE TOOLS PROVIDED to keep the government power under our control.

The way the constitution kind of describes itself as working.

The corporations are running the government becaus epeople are letting them. the corps are not the government. If the corps WERE the governent, there'd actually be nothing we could do, because corporations don't allow you the vote unless you are rich enough to own part of them.

If we pulled the oil from our own soil (and we do, some of it) what then? You don't think that mineral right is to land that OUR GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED would entitle the people and the society to regulate and tax it?

We definatly want the same thing. Government accountability but I see the path to that as being using the tools PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT to require the accountability.

You see the path as adding your voice to the chorus of people saying that it is impossible for the government to be used effectivly and securely for the interests of the people, so people should only participate in government enough to take it apart.

Do you understand that the perception that there is no way for people to control their government is the primary propaganda tool of the religious right? They come right out and say it in public!

Sorry, Mark, but talking to me might be like talking to a six-year-old, but I'll have to insist that it's like talking to a highly percocious six-year-old who has taken a couple of civics classes and read the original material from the founders.

so there.

Thhhhppppppttttt!

"You see the path as adding your voice to the chorus of people saying that it is impossible for the government to be used effectivly and securely for the interests of the people, so people should only participate in government enough to take it apart."

Oh no. No no no no no.

I absolutely believe we must be involved, using "the tools provided by the founding document of our government." That is precisely my whole point.

Maybe we're saying the same thing only with different approaches... I want to strip down the size of government - not it's power to regulate corps. You want to give them UHC, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc... I believe more in personal responsibiility. Expanded Social programs will just breed more expanded social programs - it will bankrupt us. When I say decrease the size/power of government, these are the programs I'm talking about. The government will weild all the social programs like a massive club to stamp out our freedoms.

A government that can provide all you need has the power to take it all away.

How dare you Thhhhpppppppptttttt me! I know you are but what am I? I'm taking my ball and bat - an going home!

Mark,

And here we touch on a subject that you ignored lo long time ago the last time I brought it up:

The issue of what paine called "rights of Personal Competancy". But I like to call it "personal Agency" because "competancy" has taken on a slightly different shade of meaning in the interveaning centuries.

Paine saw one of the essential functions of government to be that people should be able to pool their resources to address problems that they didn't have the resources to address on their own.

Since then, our society has become bigger, more complex, faster paced, and has required increased specialization for people to function within it. People's areas of personal agency have shrunk. We have a number of tools for dealing with this in crease in size, scope, and pace of what we need to be responsible for: Trade guilds, professional associations, special interest lobbying groups, unions, and government to name a few.

What you see as a pernicious creep of government power-grabbing for the last however many hundred years,(I forget what year you quoted wanting to roll the government back to...18- something wasn't it?)I see generally as a natural result of people increasingly needing to pool their power in order to manage their interests.

Where this breaks down is the perception that they can abdicate their responsibilities as citizens and have it continue to work.

There are some pretty good exceptions to that. there are some bad laws that are just intrusive, there are the power-grabs like the Patriot Act, and there are just outright constitutional violations like Congress giving the President the right to declare war.

But I generally see those things on an idividual basis, rather than lumping them down as uniformily explained by a particular ideological matra of "government expansion!".