Discussion in 'Politics' started by ThisIsWhyYoureWrong, May 3, 2013.
The truth hurts. And we're complicit. Thanks for the reminder.
How do John McCain's public policies and private "donations" align?
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Credit Suisse Group
Bank of America
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Blank Rome LLP
Greenberg Traurig LLP
US Dept of Defense
Ernst & Young
Big money finance at the top, then US Government
$202,929, I wonder what that is?
phone company, credit cards, then:
What Is that about? The US Army in the "top contributers" list for John McCain?
more banks, LLP's -limited liabilitity partnerships (at whose expense are their liabilities limited)?
Then we have: US Dept of Defense
wtf is going on?
next: fed ex and more lawyers
Now who does John McCain Represent?
Do you believe him?
I think it's likely that Syria has used chemical weapons; other countries in the region including Turkey and Israel agree that they have. I don't believe him that us not intervening is one of America's "most shameful chapters" though. I think our most shameful chapters have been the times we DID intervene. i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc
Let the UN deak with it
outthere2, if you have netflix you should check out the series "HOUSE OF CARDS." It's exactly how I, and probably you too, imagine Washington to be. Politicians struggling for power, while trying their best to appease whoever has bought and paid for them.
: What happens often in warfare, when common chemicals are stricken with artillery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highly_toxic_gases a list of toxic gases used in Industry.. it resembles chemical weapons.
and they can also use industrial chemicals to stage a chemical attack, to gain sympathy..
yeah, I was reading an article that was talking about how a lot of the pictures/evidence could have possibly been staged by Israel, or other war seeking interests. I'm certainly not ruling something like that out, but regardless of whether Syria has used chemical weapons or not, I still wouldn't want the US to intervene.
Thanks, I don't but I'll try to find it.
Yeah, I guess there's no connection between his private campaign "contributions" and his public life...
...yet another chapter in the war on terror...
The Ancap (aka Libertarian) solution of reducing or removing Government solves only one-half (1/2) of the problem. Ancaps are blind to corporate corruption. They hardly even acknowledge its existence. The fact is that Corporations can be just as exploitive and oppressive as government.
What's your view ThisIsWhyYoureWrong, can corporations be just as exploitive and oppressive as government (assuming no or minimal government exists)?
Take a look at the original BBC miniseries...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4N0yfWvrD0"]House of Cards: S1E1 (BBC miniseries) - YouTube
(all four episodes are on youtube)
It might be a little too British, but politics is politics, I guess.
My view is that corporations become exploitive by weilding the coercive arm of the government. Remove special privileges granted by government and a company will grow or fail according to the amount of value they provide to consumers. Open competition and consumers voting with their dollars is the best regulator for business. My view in a nut shell.
Your view targets the institution of Government as the only source of corruption. I think you're smart enough to understand that corruption is at a more fundamental level- the human level.
Since global consumers generally do not consider the conditions under which global consumer goods are made (nor do they generally have access to that information) "consumers voting with their dollars and open competition" seems a rather impotent regulator of corporate exploitation of its workers (which is a human right issue).
human rights violations, (which obviously includes genocide and "ethnic cleansing") and environment rights violations, are the ONLY reason ANYONE "should" intervene, ANYWHERE! EVER!
Wasn't aware there was such a thing...
well maybe a pickled egg in a bag of crisps is borderline.
Separate names with a comma.