Peer Reviewed Journal says that the US is an Oligarchy, not a Representative Republic

.

Meh. Call it what you will. Two facts remain:
  • Money is polluting and distorting politics, and it's causing us great damage, every single day.
  • Of all the most significant problems we face, this would be the easiest to fix, or at least improve.
I remain amazed at how many people still defend this situation.

.

I am amazed at how many people ignore the facts and insist that the problem is money, not government.


The two are tied together inextricably, they're symbiotic, they feed off each other, and that's the problem.

It couldn't be more obvious, and they're doing it right in front of our noses.

.

Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.
 
Last edited:
THere can be any number of incentuous relationships between private banks and private corporations and this problem STILL doesn't exist. You end the cash machine for GOVT loans and subsidies, and shut down MOST of the Commerce Dept which is there to promote CORPORATE interests -- and K street will become a cherry tree mall..

I dispute your claim that incestuous relationships between private banks and private corporations do not cause any problems. They are private entities so it is not exactly like the bulk of their problems get aired in public but you see these problems when it becomes a legal matter. Nevertheless, this is for a different topic.

It's undeniable that corporations and govt are having coitus reguarly and THAT is the issue. Not the money --- but the POWER to pick winners/losers and give steroidal injections of cash from the Public coffer. Make the corporations WILD again and they will stop tipping your garbage cans in the middle of the night..

And the elite in DC as well as The Big Corporations and Banks would stop this arrangement that is enriching themselves and their cronies on your say so? Based on the very findings of this study, your nor my say so does not matter unless you have $$$$ that talks for you.
 
THere can be any number of incentuous relationships between private banks and private corporations and this problem STILL doesn't exist. You end the cash machine for GOVT loans and subsidies, and shut down MOST of the Commerce Dept which is there to promote CORPORATE interests -- and K street will become a cherry tree mall..

I dispute your claim that incestuous relationships between private banks and private corporations do not cause any problems. They are private entities so it is not exactly like the bulk of their problems get aired in public but you see these problems when it becomes a legal matter. Nevertheless, this is for a different topic.

It's undeniable that corporations and govt are having coitus reguarly and THAT is the issue. Not the money --- but the POWER to pick winners/losers and give steroidal injections of cash from the Public coffer. Make the corporations WILD again and they will stop tipping your garbage cans in the middle of the night..

And the elite in DC as well as The Big Corporations and Banks would stop this arrangement that is enriching themselves and their cronies on your say so? Based on the very findings of this study, your nor my say so does not matter unless you have $$$$ that talks for you.

You're RIGHT !!! I phrased that 1st part wrong. There is still a set of problems --- But they are NOT the problem you addressed in the OP.. That being the evil collusion between Govt power and Industry SEEKING to have favors granted.

It's actually the act of GRANTING favors that is the seed of corruption as the Q. Windbag is attempting to drive home.. NOT the money kicked in for ACCESS to those favors..

They wouldn't stop it ON MY say-so -- but the Constitution ITSELF doesn't assign that power to Congress in the first place. We simply (BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT) start electing reps that will END the subsidies, loans, and favorable regulations..

Government should concentrate on the BASICS.. Like fair elections and border issues and other crap that tthey dont have time for.. And stop acting like Capitol Hill is a fast-food drive lane for corporations..
 
I am amazed at how many people ignore the facts and insist that the problem is money, not government.


The two are tied together inextricably, they're symbiotic, they feed off each other, and that's the problem.

It couldn't be more obvious, and they're doing it right in front of our noses.

.

Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.


A partisan ideologue accusing someone else of not having an original thought.

:laugh:

Gotta love this place.

.
 
I am amazed at how many people ignore the facts and insist that the problem is money, not government.


The two are tied together inextricably, they're symbiotic, they feed off each other, and that's the problem.

It couldn't be more obvious, and they're doing it right in front of our noses.

.

Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.

You missed his point. He was trying to agree with you while not overtly agreeing with you. He was also trying to disagree with you while not overtly disagreeing with you. By doing so.....he can never feel as though he is wrong about anything. He fancies himself a non-partisan ideologue.

Enjoy.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.

The fun thing is that the people with bags of cash are now actively involved in crafting legislation and getting rid of legislation they don't like.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.


The problem is that "bags of cash" is currently equated with "free speech", which, as a manic and somewhat psychotic defender of REAL free speech, I find pretty fucking annoying.

Politicians are bought and paid for, everyone knows it, and it's only getting worse.

.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.

The fun thing is that the people with bags of cash are now actively involved in crafting legislation and getting rid of legislation they don't like.

They've been doing it for years...now they're just really fucking blatant about it.

It is a small comfort to me that the bags of cash don't always work. Meg Whitman spent $177 million to Jerry Brown's $36 million and got stomped.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.


The problem is that "bags of cash" is currently equated with "free speech", which, as a manic and somewhat psychotic defender of REAL free speech, I find pretty fucking annoying.

Politicians are bought and paid for, everyone knows it, and it's only getting worse.

.

It goes way beyond annoying...it will soon be bordering on dangerous.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.

The fun thing is that the people with bags of cash are now actively involved in crafting legislation and getting rid of legislation they don't like.

They've been doing it for years...now they're just really fucking blatant about it.

It is a small comfort to me that the bags of cash don't always work. Meg Whitman spent $177 million to Jerry Brown's $36 million and got stomped.


Which might prove something if the outcomes of elections made any real difference.


As ought to be obvious after the transfer of power friom BUSH II to Obama I, nothing significant truly changes when one party takes over from the other.
 
The fun thing is that the people with bags of cash are now actively involved in crafting legislation and getting rid of legislation they don't like.

They've been doing it for years...now they're just really fucking blatant about it.

It is a small comfort to me that the bags of cash don't always work. Meg Whitman spent $177 million to Jerry Brown's $36 million and got stomped.


Which might prove something if the outcomes of elections made any real difference.


As ought to be obvious after the transfer of power friom BUSH II to Obama I, nothing significant truly changes when one party takes over from the other.

While I agree that money has infected both parties pretty equally, that does not make the parties themselves the same. There has been significant legislation passed in the last six years that would not have passed under Bush II.

And there ARE legislators that are NOT taking these bucketfuls of cash...you don't hear much about them and we should, but they are out there.
 
The two are tied together inextricably, they're symbiotic, they feed off each other, and that's the problem.

It couldn't be more obvious, and they're doing it right in front of our noses.

.

Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.


A partisan ideologue accusing someone else of not having an original thought.

:laugh:

Gotta love this place.

.

Funny how you can't explain why politicians, who benefit from money, want to keep people from spending money.
 
The two are tied together inextricably, they're symbiotic, they feed off each other, and that's the problem.

It couldn't be more obvious, and they're doing it right in front of our noses.

.

Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.

You missed his point. He was trying to agree with you while not overtly agreeing with you. He was also trying to disagree with you while not overtly disagreeing with you. By doing so.....he can never feel as though he is wrong about anything. He fancies himself a non-partisan ideologue.

Enjoy.

Life sucks, then you die.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.

Except for the fact that it specifically pointed out that who is holding the bags of cash matters more than the amount of cash they have, you pretty much summed it up.

In other words, it ain't how rich you are, it is who you know.
 
Have you ever had an original thought in your pathetic excuse for a life?

The problem is government, period. The absolute proof of that is how hard politicians work to make sure people cannot spend money on politics.


A partisan ideologue accusing someone else of not having an original thought.

:laugh:

Gotta love this place.

.

Funny how you can't explain why politicians, who benefit from money, want to keep people from spending money.


I'm not sure what this means. Who are they trying to keep from spending money?

Our political system is just FLOODED with money. It buys influence everywhere. Isn't this just common knowledge?

.
 
Last edited:
A partisan ideologue accusing someone else of not having an original thought.

:laugh:

Gotta love this place.

.

Funny how you can't explain why politicians, who benefit from money, want to keep people from spending money.


I'm not sure what this means. Who are they trying to keep from spending money?

Our political system is just FLOODED with money. It buys influence everywhere. Isn't this just common knowledge?

.

Apparently you slept through the whole, bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, AKA McCain-Feingold. You know the one I mean, the one that led to the court decisions you have been whinging about in this thread.
 
This is a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock. Gosh, a study that says politicians listen to the people with the bags of cash, not us little peons that don't do anything except vote. What a surprise.

The fun thing is that the people with bags of cash are now actively involved in crafting legislation and getting rid of legislation they don't like.

They've been doing it for years...now they're just really fucking blatant about it.

It is a small comfort to me that the bags of cash don't always work. Meg Whitman spent $177 million to Jerry Brown's $36 million and got stomped.

If you really insist that the Federal Govt has a duty to Define "White Meat Turkey" and write a regulation concerning it --- expect that the only way to do that is to collaborate with industry and negotiate what's realistic. The Fed's don't have turkey meat experts on staff.

You folks have way too high expectations for what expertise and competence is BEHIND all that government regulation and subsidies.. It SCREAMS collusion and picking winners and loser by corrupt means. Get them the hell out of micromanaging the market and the attempts to influence the process and "collaboration" with industry will disappear...
 

Forum List

Back
Top