How do you feel about insurance companies, corporations, and banks?

[Midnight Marauder]

I don't "feel" anything about them.

I do have some thoughts about them though.

 

[Bfgrn]

How do you feel about insurance companies, corporations, and banks?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr addressed this question clearly, logically and succinctly in the context of corporations that pollute our environment, but the message applies to all corporations and special interest...

-----------------------------

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
September 10, 2005

I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. That's what we do with the Riverkeepers -- we have 147 licensed Riverkeepers now and each one has a patrol boat, each one is a full-time, paid Riverkeeper -- each one agrees to sue polluters.

At Riverkeeper, we don't even consider ourselves environmentalists anymore. We're free marketers. We go out into the marketplace, we catch the cheaters, the polluters, and we say to them, "We're going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you internalize your profits, because as long as somebody is cheating the free market, none of us get the advantages of the efficiency and the democracy and the prosperity that the free market otherwise promises our country. What we have to understand as a nation is that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism, which democratizes a country, which makes us more prosperous and efficient, and the kind of corporate-crony capitalism which has been embraced by this White House, which is as antithetical to democracy, to prosperity, and efficiency in America as it is in Nigeria. [applause]

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House (Bush) has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

In order to do that, we need an informed public and an activist public. And we need a vigorous and an independent press that is willing to speak truth to power. And we no longer have that in the United States of America. And that's something that puts all the values we care about in jeopardy, because you cannot have a clean environment if you do not have a functioning democracy. They are intertwined; they go together. There is a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny and the level of environmental destruction.

The only way you can protect the environment is through a true, locally based democracy. You can protect it for a short term under a tyranny, where there is some kind of beneficent dictator but, over the long term, the only way we can protect the environment is by ensuring our democracy. That has got to be the number-one issue for all of us: to try to restore American democracy, because without that we lose all of the other things that we value.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, Jethro can't think of anything on his own and punts.

 

[Bfgrn]

IOW, Jethro can't think of anything on his own and punts.

Hey asshole, at least I post substance that requires thought. When are YOU going to post more than one sentence?

Here's a challenge to you...read RFK Jr's speech and tell me where he's wrong...

 

[Oddball]

You don't post jack shit that doesn't come from the mouths of others...To which you say "yeah, yeah....cool".

 

[Bfgrn]

You don't post jack shit that doesn't come from the mouths of others...To which you say "yeah, yeah....cool".

You're either not paying attention or you are obtuse...OK, it's the latter...

You on the other hand post NOTHING... you are a spectator that always turns to obfuscation and diversion when confronted ...


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

 

[RodISHI]

How do you feel about insurance companies, corporations, and banks?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr addressed this question clearly, logically and succinctly in the context of corporations that pollute our environment, but the message applies to all corporations and special interest...

-----------------------------

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
September 10, 2005

I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. That's what we do with the Riverkeepers -- we have 147 licensed Riverkeepers now and each one has a patrol boat, each one is a full-time, paid Riverkeeper -- each one agrees to sue polluters.

At Riverkeeper, we don't even consider ourselves environmentalists anymore. We're free marketers. We go out into the marketplace, we catch the cheaters, the polluters, and we say to them, "We're going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you internalize your profits, because as long as somebody is cheating the free market, none of us get the advantages of the efficiency and the democracy and the prosperity that the free market otherwise promises our country. What we have to understand as a nation is that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism, which democratizes a country, which makes us more prosperous and efficient, and the kind of corporate-crony capitalism which has been embraced by this White House, which is as antithetical to democracy, to prosperity, and efficiency in America as it is in Nigeria. [applause]

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House (Bush) has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

In order to do that, we need an informed public and an activist public. And we need a vigorous and an independent press that is willing to speak truth to power. And we no longer have that in the United States of America. And that's something that puts all the values we care about in jeopardy, because you cannot have a clean environment if you do not have a functioning democracy. They are intertwined; they go together. There is a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny and the level of environmental destruction.

The only way you can protect the environment is through a true, locally based democracy. You can protect it for a short term under a tyranny, where there is some kind of beneficent dictator but, over the long term, the only way we can protect the environment is by ensuring our democracy. That has got to be the number-one issue for all of us: to try to restore American democracy, because without that we lose all of the other things that we value.

Thank you for posting this. I enjoyed reading it. Do you know, did he write this himself or did a speech writer write it for him?

 

[Foxfyre]

JFK Jr's speech was designed to generate sympathy and agreement from a radical leftwing audience. It was a well crafted self-serving effort to reinforce indoctrination, not make people think. By including fuzzy concepts, partial truths out of context, and hyperbole that mostly won't hold up under careful scrutiny, it was almost certainly music to the ears of his target audience.

Example: His line "(corporations) should not be running our government." Corporations do not and have never run our government. But he knew his target audience considers corporation to be one of the few great evils in the modern world while government is the great benevolent force that will overcome evil; thus he scored points with the line.

He would surely have received little or no applause if he had truthfully stated that the problem is not corporations but the problem is with politicians who have ability to do things for corporations who will support the politicians with large campaign donations etc.

Rather than insinuating there is some constitutional way to shut corporations out of participating in the process--there isn't any way to do that--he should be advocating removing the ability of government to favor one corporation or business or group or person or constituency rather than benefit all equally. If we would have the courage and political will to demand that, we would see a lot less evil.

 

[Ragnar]

Wow. Poll runs the gamut from "despise" all the way up to "neutral". j/k

For the record I'm downright greatful for all of the above. However, I'm just a noob on his way to 15 post (so I can give links to my claims) and I'll shut up now.

Good thoughtful thread.

 

[RodISHI]

These are ones from history I think everyone should be aware of also.

THE BANKERS’ MANIFESTO OF 1934

Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished.

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress sometime between 1907 and 1917.

I would imagine that most people are in that "common" or "lower" positions described in these manifestos.

This link has history bits listed. I found this one fits fairly well as history repeats itself.

From his first months in office, [FDR] implemented tough legislation against the Wall Street looting and corruption that had brought down the stock market and the economy. He took aim at the trusts and monopolies that had returned in force with the laissez-faire government of the Roaring Twenties. By 1929, about 1,200 mergers had swallowed up more than 6,000 previously independent companies, leaving only 200 corporations in control of over half of all American industry. FDR reversed this trend with new legislation, reviving the policies initiated by his cousin Teddy. He also imposed strict regulations on Wall Street. The Glass-Steagall Act was passed, limiting speculation and preventing banks from gambling with money entrusted to them. Regular commercial banks were separated from investment banks dealing with stocks and bonds, in order to prevent bankers from creating stock offerings and then underwriting or selling the offerings by hyping the stock. Banks had to choose to be either commercial banks or investment banks. Commercial banks were prohibited from underwriting most securities, with the exception of government-issued bonds, speculative abuses were regulated through the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
... Needless to say, the Wall Street financiers were not pleased. "They are unanimous in their hatred of me," Roosevelt said defiantly, "and I welcome their hatred!" A clique of big financiers and industrialists was rumored to be so unhappy with the President that they plotted to assassinate him. Major General Smedley Butler testified before Congress that he had been solicited by Morgan banking interests to lead the plot. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Bankers_MoneyMachine_WOD.html

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh for heaven's sake RodISHI. You pull those off two of some of the most looney wacko leftwing conspiracy theorist sites on the web, and expect us to take you seriously?

 

[RodISHI]

Oh for heaven's sake RodISHI. You pull those off two of some of the most looney wacko leftwing conspiracy theorist sites on the web, and expect us to take you seriously?

"Oh for heaven's sakes" Foxfyre, are you going to say that the Glass Steagal Act was never really there, the economy has not crashed before by acts of evil corporates and banks are looking out for the best interest of the public at large. If you are I am going to call bullshit. That beast was severely wounded once and the Republican Congress and one Democrat president brought it back to life.

Even at that I will say that God allowed it or it would have never happened since you brought up heaven and even this whole mess that greedy men/women have made will serve His purpose long term. That does not mean we are to delude ourselves or let others delude us into thinking that something major should not be done to again rid this nation of this beast.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh for heaven's sake RodISHI. You pull those off two of some of the most looney wacko leftwing conspiracy theorist sites on the web, and expect us to take you seriously?

"Oh for heaven's sakes" Foxfyre, are you going to say that the Glass Steagal Act was never really there, the economy has not crashed before by acts of evil corporates and banks are looking out for the best interest of the public at large. If you are I am going to call bullshit. That beast was severely wounded once and the Republican Congress and one Democrat president brought it back to life.

Even at that I will say that God allowed it or it would have never happened since you brought up heaven and even this whole mess that greedy men/women have made will serve His purpose long term. That does not mean we are to delude ourselves or let others delude us into thinking that something major should not be done to again rid this nation of this beast.

If you want to debate Glass Steagall by all means go for it. It had its good points and it had its bad points. There were good reasons to keep it and there were good reasons to scrap at least some of it. I wish they had amended it rather than dump it altogether, but that's neither nere nor there. I was objecting to you pulling context from wacko looney sites and presenting them as valid evidence. You can do better.

If God had the power to allow it and that's in fact what he did, then God also has the power to correct it. I think God is generally telling me to speak out for and defend the right things and encourage others to do the same so that our ailing nation will be healed. What do you think he is telling you?

And on that note I'm headed for bed. Good night all.

 

[Bfgrn]

JFK Jr's speech was designed to generate sympathy and agreement from a radical leftwing audience. It was a well crafted self-serving effort to reinforce indoctrination, not make people think. By including fuzzy concepts, partial truths out of context, and hyperbole that mostly won't hold up under careful scrutiny, it was almost certainly music to the ears of his target audience.

Example: His line "(corporations) should not be running our government." Corporations do not and have never run our government. But he knew his target audience considers corporation to be one of the few great evils in the modern world while government is the great benevolent force that will overcome evil; thus he scored points with the line.

He would surely have received little or no applause if he had truthfully stated that the problem is not corporations but the problem is with politicians who have ability to do things for corporations who will support the politicians with large campaign donations etc.

Rather than insinuating there is some constitutional way to shut corporations out of participating in the process--there isn't any way to do that--he should be advocating removing the ability of government to favor one corporation or business or group or person or constituency rather than benefit all equally. If we would have the courage and political will to demand that, we would see a lot less evil.

First of all, it is Robert F Kennedy Jr. speaking in 2005, 6 years after his cousin JFK Jr's death.

Example: His line "(corporations) should not be running our government." Corporations do not and have never run our government.

Hyperbole? To some extent, but if you take the time to read his whole speech, there are examples that show it is not too much of an exaggeration IN context.

You accuse 'indoctrination'. Then, please explain what form of 'thinking' you used or what skilled instructors 'blessed' you with the knowledge to know Bob Kennedy's intent and the thinking ability of the audience? Expand on your charge of 'radical leftwing audience'. Why is it radical and leftist to work to protect our environment? Is it only radicals and leftists that view energy independence as a security issue? Is it only radicals and leftists with the foresight to see the 'Silicon Valleys' of the future will reside in countries that are innovative and progressive in green technology?


The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Foxfyre]

JFK Jr's speech was designed to generate sympathy and agreement from a radical leftwing audience. It was a well crafted self-serving effort to reinforce indoctrination, not make people think. By including fuzzy concepts, partial truths out of context, and hyperbole that mostly won't hold up under careful scrutiny, it was almost certainly music to the ears of his target audience.

Example: His line "(corporations) should not be running our government." Corporations do not and have never run our government. But he knew his target audience considers corporation to be one of the few great evils in the modern world while government is the great benevolent force that will overcome evil; thus he scored points with the line.

He would surely have received little or no applause if he had truthfully stated that the problem is not corporations but the problem is with politicians who have ability to do things for corporations who will support the politicians with large campaign donations etc.

Rather than insinuating there is some constitutional way to shut corporations out of participating in the process--there isn't any way to do that--he should be advocating removing the ability of government to favor one corporation or business or group or person or constituency rather than benefit all equally. If we would have the courage and political will to demand that, we would see a lot less evil.

First of all, it is Robert F Kennedy Jr. speaking in 2005, 6 years after his cousin JFK Jr's death.

Example: His line "(corporations) should not be running our government." Corporations do not and have never run our government.

Hyperbole? To some extent, but if you take the time to read his whole speech, there are examples that show it is not too much of an exaggeration IN context.

I stand corrected. The JFK was a typo. I should have typed RFK.

But I did read the whole speech before coming to a conclusion about it.

You accuse 'indoctrination'. Then, please explain what form of 'thinking' you used or what skilled instructors 'blessed' you with the knowledge to know Bob Kennedy's intent and the thinking ability of the audience? Expand on your charge of 'radical leftwing audience'. Why is it radical and leftist to work to protect our environment? Is it only radicals and leftists that view energy independence as a security issue? Is it only radicals and leftists with the foresight to see the 'Silicon Valleys' of the future will reside in countries that are innovative and progressive in green technology?

The Sierra Club is one of those self-serving organization that depends on and receive disproportionate government funding and also receives substantial funding from large, mostly leftwing approved, corporations. It does some good things with some of that money, but it expends a lot of time and effort in projects unrelated to saving the environment. Its tax free status and government approved privilege makes it essentially immune to any kind of audit and this is unfair to individuals and groups who enjoy no such privileges. It engages in many projects unrelated to or only loosely related to saving the environment. For instance it has expended huge amounts of its resources lobbying to have millions of acres of ‘public’ lands placed off use for any kind of human use, lobbying against nuclear power research and implementation, lobbying for population control, anti-immigration, and of course a perpetual low scale war against corporate America. (I also acknowledge that the Sierra Club has also done some good work in environmental and species protection and from time to time various chapters have worked with business and industry to find a way both the enviromentalists and industry could co-exist in the best possible way.)

An objective scrutiny of RFK Jr’s speech shows that it is almost Obama-like in its structure. He starts out strongly with universal themes that few can argue with, but then slips in his true agenda which is a frontal assault on corporations, the big bad bully and devil in the eyes of the Sierra Club. And he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he lifts up corporations as necessary and good things; then he endears himself to his audience by suggesting, however subtle the suggestion might be, that corporations must not be allowed a voice or a seat in the political process. He strives to appear reasonable though providing none of the devil in the details. But, considering his audience, he obviously intends to promote or support a particular mindset and belief in a certain perspective that generally cannot be competently defended and therefore will not be debated. And there is your hyperbole.

That, in my opinion, is what indoctrination is. I don’t claim to know what RFK Jr’s motive was, but I can judge the intent by his own words and the way he structured his speech for a specific audience.

I fully expect you to disagree with my opinion, and I accept that you do.

 

[Oddball]

It (Sierra Club) does some good things with some of that money, but it expends a lot of time and effort in projects unrelated to saving the environment. It’s tax free status and government approved privilege makes it essentially immune to any kind of audit and this is unfair to individuals and groups who enjoy no such privileges. but engages in projects unrelated to saving the environment. For instance it has expended huge amounts of its resources lobbying to have millions of acres of ‘public’ lands placed off use for any kind of human use, lobbying against nuclear power research and implementation, lobbying for population control, anti-immigration, and of course a perpetual low scale war against corporate America. (I also acknowledge that the Sierra Club has also done some good work in environmental and species protection and from time to time various chapters have worked with business and industry to find a way both the enviromentalists and industry could co-exist in the best possible way.)

IOW, they spend the bulk of their time suing, rather than protecting the environment by buying some of it up and managing it.

 

[RodISHI]

Oh for heaven's sake RodISHI. You pull those off two of some of the most looney wacko leftwing conspiracy theorist sites on the web, and expect us to take you seriously?

"Oh for heaven's sakes" Foxfyre, are you going to say that the Glass Steagal Act was never really there, the economy has not crashed before by acts of evil corporates and banks are looking out for the best interest of the public at large. If you are I am going to call bullshit. That beast was severely wounded once and the Republican Congress and one Democrat president brought it back to life.

Even at that I will say that God allowed it or it would have never happened since you brought up heaven and even this whole mess that greedy men/women have made will serve His purpose long term. That does not mean we are to delude ourselves or let others delude us into thinking that something major should not be done to again rid this nation of this beast.

If you want to debate Glass Steagall by all means go for it. It had its good points and it had its bad points. There were good reasons to keep it and there were good reasons to scrap at least some of it. I wish they had amended it rather than dump it altogether, but that's neither nere nor there. I was objecting to you pulling context from wacko looney sites and presenting them as valid evidence. You can do better.

If God had the power to allow it and that's in fact what he did, then God also has the power to correct it. I think God is generally telling me to speak out for and defend the right things and encourage others to do the same so that our ailing nation will be healed. What do you think he is telling you?

And on that note I'm headed for bed. Good night all.

First off I am not a debater never have been and hopefully will never be. I will though give my opinions based on what I know.

As for your question I cannot begin to answer that fully in one short posting yet I can tell you of what I do know to be true by what I have been shown. God rules the hearts of men/women. He also rules over the leader of the Hell's angels. I know that to be true. Good shall always rule over evil, it must. The moment one steps into the camp of the Hells angels they are subjected to what goes on therein. It is not a place for the general community to venture into yet they (they meaning hells angels) are not supposed to go beyond their own camp. If they venture beyond their own camp and act as they do when they are within the confines of their camp they will suffer the consequences of their actions severely. Again if a community member ventures into their camp they will be subjected to what goes on in that camp.

In the spirit I have seen and felt the wrath of God towards the children of Israel who worship the golden calf with the imprint of OMRI stamp on it. It is a fearsome thing that is very real. You can read Micah chapter 6 for more insight on that. Omri=Pupil of Jehovah

I hope that satisfies your question.

 

[Contumacious]

How do USMB members really feel about health care insurers?

"The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist. "

.

 

[Political Junky]

Certainly President Obama believes there is public appeal for him in condemning health insurers. He also is convinced that he gains popular support by damning corporations, banks, and credit card companies.

How do USMB members really feel about health care insurers? Of course we are well aware of the usual complaints, and the support they reportetly get too, but how do the opinions break down in proportional numbers here?

Some people simply hate insurance companies. Are they the same folks who also hate corporations, banks, credit card companies, and any other impersonal entities they come in conflict with during difficult times?

Some people are neutral about all those entities, seeing them as being necessary in a society in which personal responsibility and self discipline are better alternatives to relying on a government in every aspect of their lives; they say they are fearful that too much government involvement erodes freedom.

This poll’s purpose is to try to determine the extent and proportion of these opinions here.

You may choose more than one

I'm watching "Dateline" which is two hours about how health insurance companies deny people who have always believed they were covered, until they became seriously ill, that is.