I'd rather have my hair on fire than my head in the sand, when it comes to Corporate Power

[Armstead]

I've been accused by a few of the more conservative (centrist) posters here recently of being a "hair on fire" alarmist, a knee-jerk hater of corporations and a malcontent who demands that everything be my way.

I'm not alone on that. Those kind of things are regularly flung at many others who dare to question or challenge our esteemed leaders who have D's after their names. That's one of the recurring themes on DU, as elsewhere, and has been for years.

Perhaps it is flaring up again now because there are some items on the agenda that are once again putting that to the test -- Net Neutraity and Comcast, TPP etc.

I don't mind people who disagree my my opinions. But it gets annoying when people are condescending in an attempt to impose blind unquestioning loyalty in the wisdom and actions of our Democratic leaders and their friends in the Upper Echelons of wealth and power. So here's my blanket response:

I am not spouting off utopian idealism or knee-jerk alarmism. I am not against capitalism or corporations -- I'm not even against big corporations, to a point. But I also believe that there needs to be restraints placed on them, and that NO company or small group of individuals should swallow up too much -- and especially not ALL OF IT -- at the expense of everyone else.

I don't think the Democratic Party should be supporting such power grabs. If you think that is a wonderful direction. then the GOP would be happy to have you aboard.

Those wit their hair-on-fire currently re trying to avoid yet another economic-political-policy trainwreck that is totally avoidable. We are witnessing yet another repeat of a pattern that has become all-too-familiar over the last 35 years. The attitude of "Let's just give the Wealthy and Powerful all the unregulated power they want, and hope for the best"

That approach has been eroding the economy and social values and well being of the majority of the United States for decades. That's also how we ended up with the Pirate Corporate Capitalism that led to the crash of 2008, and continues to decimate the middle class.

That's how we ended up with a handful of Media Monopolies controlling all of broadcasting and much of print. And now they have their eyes on the Internet. Regarding Net Neutrality -- If you can possibly believe it is a good thing to hand over our basic electronic information infrastructure completely to Monopolist Corporations who have already proven what bastards they are ....Well, I've got several bridges I'll be happy to sell you.

That kind of "don't worry, be happy" attitude is what brought us financial deregulation and the Crash of 08, and all of the other problems your benevolent Corporations and Wall St. Oligarchs -- and yes they are oligarchs -- have inflicted on us while you were sleeping.

It represents the thinking that doesn't want to shut the barn door until after the horse is well out of it. And who insults those people who warned "Maybe we should close the barn door before the horse gets out."

The same shortsighted myopic attitude that back in the 90's said "Why are you spreading alarmist crap about Deregulation of the Broadcast Media? It's just allowing the broadcasters to utilize technological change to create a more competitive environment." ..... Now, 15 years later. a tiny handful of Media Monopolies have swallowed up almost every radio and TV station in the country and have almost no responsibility to serve the public interest.

It is the same stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality as those who said in the 90's: "Don't worry about deregulation of the financial sector. Those nice banks and Wall St. investment houses just want a little more freedom from outdated regulations to adapt to modern economic realities. Trust them. They promise they'll behave themselves. And the Markets will ensure that banking remains competitive and no bank will get too big or powerful."

We all know how that one worked out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. It's a symptom of Hair-on-Fire-ness to think those are the only two options

[Armstead]

2. That is my point -- There are many ways to look at these things

I know that many issues are complicated. Lot of technical and legal stuff, and many other factors. It's not either/or. I'm all for compromise etc.

But I must make two points to defend hair-on-fireism.

1)Unless the rest of us stand up against it, those Oligarchs and Corporations who already have the money and power will use that to dominate the dialogue and impose their goals on the rest of us. And if our esteemed leaders buy into their line of bullshit they will simply embed those Corporate Perogatives further into the system.

2)It is possible to see the results of stupid giving-away-the-store policies.The problem is that if we wait until they have become embedded, the damage will have been done and positive reform will be made more difficult, if not impossible.

[Armstead]

6. And 3).....

I'm all for honest differences of opinion. When people civilly disagree with me, I'm happy to civilly disagree with them.

But I will respond to snide snark with snide snark.

[cantbeserious]

3. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

Alarm, We Should All Be Alarmed As We Watch Democracy Perish On The Alter Of Money And Power.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Hah!

Got ya to the Greatest Page.

[Armstead]

5. With six posts?

[Jackpine Radical]

13. 5th rec.

[840high]

51. 86 rec

[JEB]

52. 87

[pscot]

74. 135

Last edited Sun May 11, 2014, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Armstead is on a roll.

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. From a letter written by Theodore Roosevelt to President Wilson about the Progressive party

“I quote from the Progressive platform: "Behind the ostensible Government sits enthroned an invisible Government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. . . . This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." ”

Excerpt From: Theodore Roosevelt. “Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/ST3Kx.l

[Armstead]

27. We seem deternmined to go into the past to the time just before Roosevelt wrote that

Back to that good old Gilded Age

[Bonhomme Richard]

38. He had balls but it took more than that.

He was also popular with the people because he promoted a populist progressive reformation. The Oligarchs couldn't wait to get him out of there.
A funny historic note. The only reason he was nominated for Vice-President was because it was the only way they could get him out of the Governors office in New York because of his popularity with the voters. Both party machines hated him but the republican machine more so...he was a republican and wouldn't bend to their wishes unless he agreed with them.
His autobiography is terrific and to read, in his words, what was happening is a stark reminder of the goals of the wealthy and they are relentless.

[ProSense]

8. Isn't this

I've been accused by a few of the more conservative (centrist) posters here recently of being a "hair on fire" alarmist, a knee-jerk hater of corporations and a malcontent who demands that everything be my way.

I'm not alone on that. Those kind of things are regularly flung at many others who dare to question or challenge our esteemed leaders who have D's after their names. That's one of the recurring themes on DU, as elsewhere, and has been for years.

Perhaps it is flaring up again now because there are some items on the agenda that are once again putting that to the test -- Net Neutraity and Comcast, TPP etc.

I don't mind people who disagree my my opinions. But it gets annoying when people are condescending in an attempt to impose blind unquestioning loyalty in the wisdom and actions of our Democratic leaders and their friends in the Upper Echelons of wealth and power. So here's my blanket response:

...whining about DU? You say you "don't mind people who disagree my my opinions," but you started a thread complaining about people disagreeing with you. Your threads get plenty of support so you started a thread to declare disgreement with you as "blind unquestioning loyalty."

What's your opinion of people "are condescending in an attempt to impose blind unquestioning loyalty in the wisdom and actions Glenn Greenwald"?

[Armstead]

17. I have absolutey no problem with people who have differences of opinion if....

..they are wiling to express them civilly, have some degree of an open mind and are actuayl willing to engage on the subject.

If someone says:
"I believe Glenn Greenwald was totally wrong because he compromised national security, etc....."

I have no problem with that.
If someone says:

"You're just another Obama hater because you support what Greenwald did..."

I gotta problem with that.

Likewise if someone says "I don't believe rescinding Net Neutrality is going to be a problem because..."

Nooooo problem. "I'll come back with: "I think you're wrong about that because....."

But if someone says "You extremists don't live in the real world. You just want a pony and this is just another excuse to bash Obama because he won't give you one..."

I will come back with an equal degree of snark.

[ProSense]

18. So

I have abcolutey no problem with people ho have differences of opinion if....

..they are wiling to express them civilly, have some degree of an open mind and are actual willing to engage on the subject.


If someone says:
"I believe Glenn Greenwald was totally wrong because he compromised national security, etc....."

I have no problem with that.
If someone says:

"You're just another Obama hater because you support what Greenwald did..."

I gotta problem with that.

Likewise if someone says "I don't believe rescinding Net Neutrality is going to be a problem because..."

Nooooo problem. "I'll come back with: "I think you're wrong about that because....."

But if someone says "You extremists don't live in the real world. You just want a pony and this is just another excuse to bash Obama because he won't give you one..."

I will come back with an equal degree of snark.

...you needed to start a thread saying that you can and will respond to other posters? Why not just respond to them?

I mean, your threads get a lot of support, but you seem to be calling out a few comments that likely are limited to a handful of people.

[Armstead]

21. I got tired of retyping te same thing

MY post was in response to several posts that al had the same basic theme.

And it is not personal, although cast as such. A lot of DUrs (and people elsewhere who have their hair on fire) get the same shit tossed at them. It's kind of a pattern and fairly predictable sometimes.

[ProSense]

23. Do you

"I got tired of retyping te same thing"

...think the next time someone responds to you in the way you find "annoying" they're going to reference this thread?

[elzenmahn]

24. Aren't you getting tired of copying and pasting the same thing?

Just sayin' ...

[ProSense]

26. No, but if you're tired of reading my posts, it would be a good idea to stop. LOL! n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

39. Good idea. n/t

[ProSense]

42. Thanks. n/t

[progressoid]

55. ...

[grahamhgreen]

59. Are you for or against net neutrality. & the costly TPP?

[nationalize the fed]

9. If your hair isn't on fire when you look at what is being done

to the middle class, you either aren't paying attention or you're in the 1%

People should try to remember that the US was founded by a bunch of True Rebels that didn't suck up to "authority" and risked their lives for something better.

Some folks like to be lied to. Then they don't have to do anything but bitch at things (and people) they don't like.

[jtuck004]

12. "US was founded by a bunch of True Rebels" <-after killing perhaps tens of millions of people who

already lived here.

Don't forget we have a holiday that celebrates a fella who would snatch up young girls and boys and give them as bonuses for good work by his officers, and the young kids could be used for sex or testing one's sword before they threw what was left of their little carcass overboard.

And it's always easier to pretend you are a righteous rebel AFTER you pick the flesh of the native person out of your teeth, the one you dug up and cannibalized to live through the day. But after a couple hundred years you can't hardly see it.

Just don't forget that we are standing on the bones of those who made it possible. THEY were the ones who, as it turns out, risked and lost their lives to pave the way for our "true rebels", cannibals brought to you by murdering bastards and child rapists.

And we wonder why we celebrate corporate culture

[zeemike]

10. Well said.

And now it needs to be well heeded by the progressives or we are finished as a movement.
TPTB will continue to triangulate us right out of existence.

[Lint Head]

11. We are owned. Pure and simple. The hynotized see otherwise. We need to free ourselves.

Look up Edward Bernays. The creator of the concept of Public Relations. Corporations have succeeded in marrying PR with government and control of government. It does not matter if government is left or right. Selling products and convincing people that it will make them feel better to constantly replace goods has created not only environmental devastation but political control of mass populations. The corporation will frame a product to the left or right just to sell it. Everything from cars to weapons to food. Oil, water, energy and more.
Read Walter Lipman. We have forgotten the past and are now doomed to repeat it. The exception is that the environment devastation and utter control of people who are not powerful will be in totality.

My hair is toast.

[TBF]

62. And then read Marx -

it may be old-fashioned but he gives us the answers. Or at least a good kick in the right direction.

[rhett o rick]

14. If you try to close the barn door before the horses get out you will run into trouble.

Some use the CT card to shut down speculation that may not fit their world view. Others use the ridicule card (or )

[rhett o rick]

15. Well put. nm

[MohRokTah]

16. It's not a binary situation. It's not black and white. The entire issue is various shades of gray.

There, I fixed your problem.

[Armstead]

19. Most issues DO have shades of grey.

I'm all for negotiation and compromise.

But sometimes there are also power grabs going on that are ultimately pretty simple.

[MohRokTah]

20. And that's the black and white extremes at work.

We cannot live without corporations but by the same token, we cannot live without corporate regulation.

One basic fact of economic and financial health on a global basis is the simple statement that too big to fail is too big to exist.

Beyond those basic features, everything is up for negotiation, but it must be on an even footing between regulation and free trade.

[Armstead]

25. In theory I aree with that

But the ability to negotiate in good faith is too often stripped away by private institutions with money and power using their resources to reinforce and expand themselves at the public's expense. (i.e lobbyists, expensive lawyers, corrupt politicians, cowardly politicians, public propaganda.)

The issue of Net Neutrality is very technically complex. But what the ISP/Media Monopolies are currently trying to do is overwhelm legitimate technical issues -- and instead use their power to totally take over the system and determine on their own how those issuers will be resolved. And they're not driven by a desire to operate in the pubic interest.

And they are relentless. Net Neutrality won once. But they weren't satisfied by living with the result, as most of us have to do when society's restraints are placed on our desires and excesses. Instead they dipped into their very deep pockets and came back and once again are trying to overwhelm the pubic will.
\

[MohRokTah]

28. And I cannot disagree with anything you've said there, either. The money is the differentiating...

factor in this since the SCOTUS has ruled that basically, money is speech.

So now we are at the root of the problem. What it is going to require is educating the American public.

Make no mistake about it, Net Neutrality will be a more defining moment in Barack Obama's administration than the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a defining moment for the Clinton administration by at least a factor of ten. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 set up the destruction of the free market of ideas. Killing Net Neutrality will be the final nail in the coffin.

Net Neutrality is the final line in the sand. If that line breaks, the center cannot hold and the war is over. Global oligarchy will be the rule forever.

[Armstead]

31. Hopefully not forever -- But it will be a huge setback for the rest of us

which is why I say some issues are really simple.

The Telcomm ACT for example, removed the limits of one company owning more than 7 radio and TV stations. (I think it was 7)

Okay, maybe if they'd allowed a compromise to raise that to 10 or 15 or something....But when a Clear Channel now owns seven or either stations IN ONE MARKET multiplied by all of the cities in the country -- that goes far beyond compromise. That's a takeover of the system.

And those with their hair on fire saw those implications at the time...But others (including Democratic "centrists" patted them on the head and said "Don't worry. This will add competition to broadcasting through a magical process."

Same thing with banking and many other industries.

[DeSwiss]

45. Everything in 3D is binary. n/t

[MisterP]

22. and the weirdest thing they act like they're constantly right (or have ever been)

like with Iraq they act like we were getting a Baathist/al-Qaeda 9-11 every month with "far left's" backing, vs. the "far right" wanting to kill all Muslims, and in their Solomonic wisdom the centrists decided to grant Iraq democracy (but Bush just fudged it up)

they may complain about the GOP or say that gays are human, but their worldviews and often policies match: they're part of a shared and stifling political culture, not "two choices" for all Americans

[hunter]

29. I boycott most every big corporate thing I can, at some cost to my convenience, but not much.

I quit comcast years ago. I don't even watch broadcast television.

I don't buy new cars or computers, I usually stick with generic products. No Microsoft, no Apple software. The giant corporations require "consumers." I try not to be a consumer.

My internet is DSL from a local provider.

Absolutely, positively, internet providers ought to be common carriers, and not content providers able to fast track their own content or content they "package" for others. The cable television business model is obsolete, companies like comcast or time warner ought to be split up into separate, smaller corporations -- with the service providers into one bin, the content providers into the other.

The U.S.A. also ought to be working on universal free internet and phone services for everyone, even people in rural areas. Higher speed "HD" television or major content providers like Netflix and existing "cable stations" like HBO or CNN would pay common carrier internet providers for the higher capacity their services require.

[JoePhilly]

30. When everthing is a "hair-on-fire" event, nothing is.

There is a segment on DU who freaks out on an almost daily basis.

And if an actual outrage doesn't exist, they'll create them.

They'll predict outrages that never come to pass.

Their outrage meter is always set to 11.

And as a result, nothing stands out. There is no focus.

The combustible hair club runs from outrage to outrage as if each is the worst thing to ever happen.

Until a couple days later, when that outrage is replaced by a new worst thing ever, outrage.

[Armstead]

33. That's because there ARE so many reasons to have hair on fire

Sorry if the repetition offends your sensibilities but that's the way it is.

I wish it were otherwise. We're not real happy having to worry about this crap. You think it's fun watching things in society you care about being dismantled and gutted by the Oligarchs who already have far too much?

And the bastards just keep coming up with new reasons to be alarmed. AND the smug complacency of those who mock "hair on fire" is EXACTLY WHY the bastards get away with it.

Some of us thought Net Neutrality might be safe a couple of years ago when it was previously "settled." But noooooooo. The bastards just dipped into their bottomless pockets and came back.

And now is looks like --unless he has a change of heart -- Obama is just going to let them take it over with the help of those Congressional Dems who wont fight it. (Not all of them.)

It's te same dynamic has allowed the financial system to become so concentrated and ugly-distorted.

The warnings were made about massive deregulation in the 90's when the seeds of deregulation were sewn. But the people who warned against that were mocked and disregarded. And we had the Crash of 08, and a banking system and national economy tat is now totally dominated by crooked "too big to fail" banks and investment houses.

[JoePhilly]

37. I love a lecture from one of DU's high Priests of liberalsim.

Clearly you love this country way more than I do.

What I find as a common element in these outrage discussions is that the outraged rarely have any ideas on how to move forward. Unless complaining is a path forward.

Take Net Neutrality. The administration had made one proposal. That failed in court. So they made another proposal that has elements we don't like.

First question ... if the administration hates us, why did they make the original proposal? Must have been a trick, I guess. They wanted that to fail. So they could make the 2nd proposal and screw us. IS that it?

And what's your proposal? What should they be proposing given that court ruling?

DU tends to be relatively mute on that point.

A constructive and meaningful use of outrage would be to try and figure out what to do next, and find policy makers to take it forward. Gnashing of teeth isn't a strategy.

But rarely will we see proposals in these threads. The discussion starts and ends with the over the top outrage.

Because in many cases, outrage is really the only point being made.

[Armstead]

40. DU has not been mute on that point. But I guess you missed those.

I think you love the country as much as I do. But I also think you are rigid and closed minded and stuck on stereotypes of "leftists" and what you assume people want who criticize our esteemed leaders in DC.

First of all, the FCC doesn't have to rush anything through. The court did not tell the FCC it could not do anything. It told it it had to make certain changes to regulate certain things.

That is NO reason to rush to make bad policy like the one that has been proposed.

There are fairly straightforward classification steps that can be taken to make the Internet subject to regulation. Whether permanent or not, they would at least buy more time to come up wit something reasonable that protects the pubic interest in the long run.

There have been many discussions here (and elsewhere) about the alternatives to this. If you don't want to even consider the alternative ideas that have been made, fine. .....But don't then complain that no proposals have been made or that people who are critical of our esteemed leaders don't have any ideas.

[Armstead]

41. And I would add that Obama has since appointd a Comcast insider...

to head the FCC, at a time when two plans to make Comcast a defacto owner of the Internet are being considered.

That is hard to fathom unless you assume that its good to place the fox in charge of the hen-house.

[treestar]

70. True and with use of hyperbole

that harms the cause anyway. By now we are suspicious that the latest outrage may be exaggerated.

[Armstead]

80. If our hyperbolie drives you to ignore issues that are important simply because....

..we are bringing then up in a way you disapprove of, then I suggest you are too swayed by the opinions of others in a Bizarro way.

If you feel that net neutrality isn't important, after objectively looking at it, that's certainly your right.

But at least look into it for yourself and decide that, rather than say "Oh that crazy Armstead (or whomever) is all excited again, so my suspicions tell me it's not really important. And so I'll just ignore it."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. When you put your head in the oven you aren't supposed to LITE it. HTH.

[MissDeeds]

34. Yep

K&R

[bvar22]

35. My hair is on fire too, along with my heart.

Has been since the "Centrist" revolution (funded by Koch Money) inside the Democratic party in the early 90s.

I MISS the Democratic party I joined 47 years ago:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

I am not about to go gentle into that "Centrist" Good Night!


DURec!

[Armstead]

36. What do you want? A pony too?

Just kidding, of course. Agreed 100 plus percent

[L0oniX]

43. Yet there is fawning over the rich from our own.

When are people going to see the rich for what they are? Enemies of we the people. The rich are not going to help us. There will never be another FDR. There is no comparison with FDR to the rich enemies we have today. Makes me sick to see our side worship and bow down to the rich in any form.

[Overseas]

71. K&R. Yes please!

[DeSwiss]

44. K&R

''I've been accused by a few of the more conservative (centrist) posters here recently of being a "hair on fire" alarmist, a knee-jerk hater of corporations and a malcontent who demands that everything be my way.''

I am all of the above and proud of it. Corporations are the tumors sprouted by the societal cancer called CAPITALISM.

- It should be destroyed and burned. And then burn the ashes.

[Enthusiast]

46. Why doesn't this post have hundreds of recommendations?

How can anyone dispute what Armstead is saying?

It is only through challenging and questioning that we can right the ship. WTF?

[Armstead]

47. Because I'm an asshole

[Doctor_J]

54. because it wasn't posted by William or Manny or a BOG member

[Silent3]

57. Pehaps false dichotomies aren't as popular as you'd hope? n/t

[tabasco]

48. Are those the only two choices?

Damn.

[Armstead]

79. Only two viable ones at this point unfortunately

Of course I guess you could have your hair in fire calmly -- but it would still need to be on fire.

[blkmusclmachine]

49. I've been watching the WalMartization of the Democratic Party for a while now. Sickening, IMHO.

[Octafish]

61. Great term, WalMartization...

Most New Democratic:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm

[L0oniX]

68. Elephonkys and Demophants?

[nationalize the fed]

77. .

[Efilroft Sul]

50. Kicking this to the top for anyone who's missed it thus far.

Kudos to you, Armstead, and sabrina, and bvar, and woo, and everyone else on the left here who is awake to what's really going on. Let's win this war of ideas and ideals.

[Doctor_J]

53. well put

Kr

[snot]

56. I'm with you!

[WillyT]

58. K & R !!!

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

60. K&R Family accuses me of...

Hair on fire all the time.

[Progressive dog]

63. Accusing others of being short sighted and myopic

because they don't agree with you sounds kind of like the stuff you're complaining about.

[Armstead]

65. You're probably right

But I only react that way -- and was referring -- when people respond with condescension to posts raising legitimate issues.

If someone has an honest difference of opinion, and expresses it civilly and respectfully, that's a different matter.

[nashville_brook]

64. well said. we elect D's to do the job of the people...

and that means protecting citizens from abuse of power. instead they're selling us out.

[L0oniX]

67. Blind ignorance is not exclusive to one political party.

I see the attitude like D's are the only smart and sensible ones and then I see the corporate shills and lovers of the rich fawning over their pictures. We are IMO about as conflicted as the GOP is. Corporate 3rd way centrists are the enemies of progressives, populists, liberals and greens. It ain't a purity test. We will never meld with them. We Dems have our own corporate owned tea party. The only reason we are here is so they can have their "big tent" and push their "if you don't vote with us you are voting for the other" freak show. There will never be another FDR because of them. They really don't want an FDR. Status quo is the agenda ak Hillary.

[nashville_brook]

72. there's one avenue to short-circuit this -- Vote Local

local politics tend to make these tensions transparent.


http://www.votelocal2014.org

[L0oniX]

75. Voting local is the only reason I am a registered Dem.

[99Forever]

66. Excellent rant. n/t

[treestar]

69. It gets annoying when people don't agree with you

I think use of the "corporations" as the Big Evil is so vague it doesn't help anything. It doesn't get people working for Democrats. Very few people hate a particular business form so much. It's hard to get people excited about voting because they are supposedly going to stop "the corporations" from doing shit. People work for corporations, form them, buy things from them, etc. They don't seem particularly evil. I think the real protest might be campaign finance reform or more business regulation. But no one is going to win an office promising to - what? - dissolve all corporations.

In fact it has become fashionable to use the LLC, so where's the ranting about them?

[Armstead]

76. Oligarchs is actully a better term but...

It;s not about hating corporations or trying to abolish them. (at least not for me.)

However, the entire economy has been skewed and screwed by the tendency of a small number of Monopolistic Corporations -- and wealthy Gordon Gekkos -- over the years to go far beyond mere profitability, and push themselves into the realm of frightening amounts of wealth and power and crushing everyone else.

if some of us sound strident about that, it is because we are frustrated with the complacency and political corruption that enables that to happen. Over and over. And it is due complacency and short sightedness. 2008 was a classic example. The chickens from the centrist" deregulation of the late 90's came home to roost.

There is a potentially fatal flaw in capitalism, which is the ability to use wealth and power to continue to accumulate ever-mroe wealth and power. Which both undermines the notion off truly competitive free enterprise, and distorts the political system to favor their interests over those of the majority.

It's a process that's been going on for about 35 years --and the results are many of the individual evils that Democrats claim to be defending us from, including the hollowing out o the middle class, low wages, rotten healthcare system, and the f'd up political system, and climate change, etc.

And what has allowed that to continue is the complacency that supports politicians who are bought and sold and who pass laws and policies that favor continued concentration of wealth and power.

[stupidicus]

73. much the same has been said by many in many ways

and I have found much encouragement in the increased frequency of efforts like this since I came here a couple of years ago.

Them and their support for, acquiescence over, or relative apathy about many issues that arises from ignorance, shortsightedness, or simply not being a lefty in sufficent measure to care more about what being one means as opposed "winning elections" that have largely been just baby steps in the rightwing direction, are every bit as much 'OUR" problem as the rightwingnuts they fear so but share so much with -- and particularly the tactics you addressed here. That's why I gave up all hope of playing nicely with them long ago.

The bottom line to me has always been that only results matter, and all the good intentions they may or may not have in this case has for the last couple of decades and more, merely been a paving of the road to our collective hell.

And the upcoming HC candidacy will be another win for them and the rightwing/repub-lite agenda they unwittingly or otherwise support.

As I've argued it to those creeps from the beginning -- this debate is really all and simply ONLY about what the respective parties embroiled in this debate are willing to settle for outta our leaders, and we all identify who and what we are in the process. I have almost as much disdain for the third way morans as I do the rightwingnuts, and reciprocation on that is one thing we share in common, and often serves as the fodder for efforts such as yours here.

The question that the DU community needs to answer, is whether this is a "liberal" house, or one to also be occupied by those who are complicit in the ruination of the "liberal" country we all presumably want. It's one thing for them to be living in the same house as partners in that goal, while quite another to be playing the role the content of your post makes clear. As I've argued it from the beginning, their BS is not only counterproductive, it's really kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts in terms of any GOTV efforts. They accuse us of diminshing interest with our concerns and objections to what is or potentially could be, e.g. chained cpi, etc, while either being oblivious to or not caring about the fact that they are pushing people away with their "hair on fire" characterizations and far worse. They've been validating the fears, etc, of their victims, given that there's really not much diff between what they're doing and that coming from the third way leaders. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297912/-Why-Yes-Bill-Clinton-Has-Nothing-But-Contempt-for-You&sa=U&ei=4qZvU42GGsGnyASW2oHoCA&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHnD6Gdtx6zxzpC1ybbwUmiXRMICg http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-Likes-Obam-by-Eric-Zuesse-Health-Care-Universal--Single-Payer_Hillary-Clinton_Hillary-Clinton_Single-payer-140301-877.html

It's the same kinda mindless zeal and self-destructive behavior their rightwingnut cousins engage in.

good post

[raouldukelives]

78. K&R Couldn't agree more!

We have a lot of chickens coming home to roost that the corporate investors and sycophants won't live to see. They are chiefly responsible for the actions and even more insidiously, for the lack of action to address critical issues when it could harm the bottom line.
Always reminds me of a line from the Batman movie. "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Many of them die as heroes, as captains of industry with weepy farewells and memories held in reverence. The children & animals of tomorrow will weep farewell for far different reasons.