California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You

[eflatminor]

but they do and you still support it. See the problem?

Actually, they don't have the power (not a power granted in the Constitution) and we don't support politicians engaging in cronyism or anything outside those enumerated powers for that matter.

See now?

They still use it

Yes they do. Yet you refuse to stand against them. Odd.

and you support it denying reality

No, I do not support it. I understand that as long as the politicians continue to meddle beyond their enumerated powers, business will happily accept the handout. You can bitch about the organizations that benefit all day long but nothing will change until the those with the power (government) are restrained.

Or, you can hope that businesses will avoid taking the handouts because you think it's the right thing to do. Good luck with that tact.

Personally, I'll continue to advocate limiting government to the few areas in which they're allowed to meddle.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Me too, while also not forgetting that it takes two to tango

 

[JoeNormal]

Of course, we're talking about cronyism, not pollution.

One more time: How are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

So you can't answer the question, got it.

I've answered it at least twice. You just don't want to hear it.

 

[flacaltenn]

... companies can get laws passed by contributions and political favors.

Exactly! And that's the problem we need to be addressing. Slapping on ad-hoc fines after that fact, that might or might not punish those actually responsible for the corruption, is moronic.

Are you suggesting an organizations should be prevented from lobbying their government? Gonna outlaw political contributions?

Who exactly is responsible for corruption? The organization that lobbies for a loophole in the law or the politician that happily supports the loophole? I'd argue the former are merely advocating for the interest of their stakeholders, while the latter are engaging in cronyism outside their specifically enumerated powers.

Like the way you put that. But WHO is responsible?

It's ultimately US for allowing the scope of govt to expand to limits that makes the cronyism and meddling possible. Where the Feds buy car companies and fund dishwashers. It's OUR FAULT for not holding the line on the POWER that these legistlators can wield..

 

[ClosedCaption]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

 

[Amelia]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

And burglary is the fault of the burglar, not anyone else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors.

Vigilance is in order. Definitely not giving more power to the people who've shown they can't handle what they have.

 

[Steelplate]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

Those corrupted by greed and power that force those running for office to take their campaign donations? And don't say they're not forced....when.it takes.millions. and.millions of dollars to run an effective campaign for Federal Office....those people want something in return for that money. The idea that politicians are corrupted all on their own is a fallacy of epic proportions. Some are true crooks...but most get sucked into the game by the need to raise money to get elected, and once it starts, the conglomerate has their hooks in deep.

 

[flacaltenn]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

Those corrupted by greed and power that force those running for office to take their campaign donations? And don't say they're not forced....when.it takes.millions. and.millions of dollars to run an effective campaign for Federal Office....those people want something in return for that money. The idea that politicians are corrupted all on their own is a fallacy of epic proportions. Some are true crooks...but most get sucked into the game by the need to raise money to get elected, and once it starts, the conglomerate has their hooks in deep.

Try to follow the logic here SteelyOne.. If the powers to grant myriad of favors and rewards didn't fall into their hands --- all that money wouldn't BUY much would it?

Take away the campaign money and they would figure out other ways to barter for the POWER they usurp from the Constitution. The POWER and the ever expanding SCOPE of that power is the fundamental problem.. QED..... A cushy job after leaving office? A big business locating in their state? The campaign money is NOT the proximite cause..

My God man.. LIGHTBULBS? Car Company Stock? Steroids in Baseball? They suck at the basics of governing because they FEEL there's no limit to their power...

 

[Avatar4321]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

They are corrupt because of our corruption.

We are responsible for what our representatives do. Refusing to accept that responsibility is in and of itself a corruption on our part.

 

[Meathead]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

They are corrupt because of our corruption.

We are responsible for what our representatives do. Refusing to accept that responsibility is in and of itself a corruption on our part.

A traffic jam of tautologies compounded with an amazing grasp of the obvious.

Never mind, oh hell. Cumbaya any anyway.

 

[Avatar4321]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

They are corrupt because of our corruption.

We are responsible for what our representatives do. Refusing to accept that responsibility is in and of itself a corruption on our part.

A traffic jam of tautologies compounded with an amazing grasp of the obvious.

Never mind, oh hell. Cumbaya any anyway.

There is nothing tautological about what I said. Are you sure you understand what a tautology is?

And yes, it's extremely obvious. But when people can't see the obvious someone has to point it out.

We are responsible for the corruption of people who represent us. We cannot excuse ourselves from their corruption. We should be engaging in our due dilligence to ensure that those who represent us are not corrupt. If they are, we have the obligation to either 1)persuade that representative to stop being corrupt; 2) Find someone to replace them; or 3) If we cannot do either, we have an obligation to run ourselves to ensure that we have someone who is not corrupt in power.

Of course, that presupposes that we are doing everything in our power to avoid corruption ourselves. Which is one of the main reason we have corrupt representatives to begin with.

 

[eflatminor]

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

So you can't answer the question, got it.

I've answered it at least twice. You just don't want to hear it.

You go with that...

 

[ClosedCaption]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

They are corrupt because of our corruption.

We are responsible for what our representatives do. Refusing to accept that responsibility is in and of itself a corruption on our part.

No they are corrupt because humans are greedy by nature. No matter what voters do it will not stop someone from abusing power once they are in.

The only way to prevent that is to either change the system or for all Americans to become psychic

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not enough ire to go around?

Apparently not.

You have no ire for Jeffrey Immelt or other well connect looters, as long as they are faithful party members.

But it's always "party above all" with you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not enough ire to go around?

Apparently not.

You have no ire for Jeffrey Immelt or other well connect looters, as long as they are faithful party members.

But it's always "party above all" with you.

Excuse me, who are you?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

This is among the stupidest, most contemptible sentences ever written in the English language. Thank you for giving me a clear example to show people reporting to me at work of why it is better to keep one's mouth shut than prove what folks may already suspect.

Obviously someone knew lobbyists damage the nation, or so much of what is legal today would not have been made illegal in the periods after each major war.

Just as obviously corrupt politicians damage their constituencies whether it be a town or a city, a state or the nation. Voters who re elected Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Junebug are directly responsible for most of the nation's problems today.

As for Obama? Nutballs haven't run a presentable candidate since 1996. No one with any sense voted for the nutball in recent years despite the Democrats running candidates who couldn't efficiently manage a town parking lot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Excuse me, who are you?

The one calling you on the carpet.

 

[Oddball]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

This is among the stupidest, most contemptible sentences ever written in the English language. Thank you for giving me a clear example to show people reporting to me at work of why it is better to keep one's mouth shut than prove what folks may already suspect.

Obviously someone knew lobbyists damage the nation, or so much of what is legal today would not have been made illegal in the periods after each major war.

That's as stupid as blaming the street dealer for the actions of the drug lord.

Just as obviously corrupt politicians damage their constituencies whether it be a town or a city, a state or the nation. Voters who re elected Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Junebug are directly responsible for most of the nation's problems today.

And what of the 75% of the people (remember, half of all potential voters usually don't vote) who cast a vote for the loser or didn't vote at all?...Are they to blame for the actions of the corrupt?

As for Obama? Nutballs haven't run a presentable candidate since 1996. No one with any sense voted for the nutball in recent years despite the Democrats running candidates who couldn't efficiently manage a town parking lot.

Nutball democratics haven't run a presentable candidate since Grover Cleveland.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

We are not responsible for the corruption of others. Corruption is the fault of the corrupted and no one elses

This is among the stupidest, most contemptible sentences ever written in the English language. Thank you for giving me a clear example to show people reporting to me at work of why it is better to keep one's mouth shut than prove what folks may already suspect.

Obviously someone knew lobbyists damage the nation, or so much of what is legal today would not have been made illegal in the periods after each major war.

That's as stupid as blaming the street dealer for the actions of the drug lord.

Given that street dealers do as a matter of fact make drug lords possible, you might want to rethink that.

Just as obviously corrupt politicians damage their constituencies whether it be a town or a city, a state or the nation. Voters who re elected Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Junebug are directly responsible for most of the nation's problems today.

And what of the 75% of the people (remember, half of all potential voters usually don't vote) who cast a vote for the loser or didn't vote at all?...Are they to blame for the actions of the corrupt?

Absolutely. All it takes for evil to prosper is for nonvoting human cattle to do nothing.

As for Obama? Nutballs haven't run a presentable candidate since 1996. No one with any sense voted for the nutball in recent years despite the Democrats running candidates who couldn't efficiently manage a town parking lot.

Nutball democratics haven't run a presentable candidate since Grover Cleveland.

Kennedy was the last decent Democrat, but he didn't really get off the ground. Truman was presentable by about any Presidential mark - and a hell of a lot more presentable than any nutball since IKE.

Great response. Much appreciated.

 

[Oddball]

I've though through my position a whole lot better than you may have thought I have.....It's you who hasn't done so....You're blaming the maggots for the rotting carcass.

JFK was borderline and Truman was an interventionist warmonger, with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands...I stand my my statement that the democratics haven't had a president worth a shit since Cleveland.