Rachel on the Chamber of Commerce & foreign money in U.S. elections

[babsbunny]

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/rachel-on-chamber-of-commerce-foreign.html

by Gaius Publius on 10/16/2010 11:03:00 AM

If all you have read of the Chamber of Commerce story is the headlines and snippets, you probably got the bottom line correctly. The "U.S." Chamber of Commerce has very likely been taking foreign money and "investing in" U.S. politicians (and I know you know I mean "donating to") — in massive doses. Shock! say you. Yet more Citizens United money carpet-bombing our electoral process! And this time, foreign!

I raised the spectre here of a descent into client-nation status. When your creditors put money into (buying) your political process, you get the rulers they want, not the ones you want. The U.S. has client nations and rulers all around the world. They don't make the news; only when clients push back — Iraq and Afghanistan — is it news. And then only because of our clearly recognized desire that they be "better" (more submissive) clients. I would venture to guess that most U.S. voters would prefer that Iraq and Afghanistan be better clients. (Needless to say, that's the inverse of "spreading democracy.")

[RandomThoughts]

1. Submissive is for actions of control.

It is a concept of being used. If someone wants to be submissive that is fine, but telling someone they should be is wrong in my view.

Slaves are told to be submissive.

As are workers

And some even said wives should be submissive.


In each of those cases it is to remove their choices and how they want to be in life, without care for who they want to be.

It is wrong, and a selfish act by someone that wants control. I disagree with that.



Then again, I don't have beer and travel money, and get kicked around a bit, :) but not going to 'be something' unless someone can explain why I should with an argument. Also why some text criticized lawyers, they want someone to make there case, and realize a person does not have to be submissive, if it is not a choice, or the thing trying to dominate can not argue why they should.


If you want to be submissive, great, that is a choice, but if you want to stand up for some thought with an argument and a rational choice, that makes sense also.



Forced submissiveness is so some can take advantage of others and so they can get a benefit without caring for those that are being told to be submissive. And if they can not argue there reason, and can not show caring, don't be submissive to them, unless you want to.