corporatizing your life

[Lorax]

This is why the Tush administration was the closest and scariest thing we've come to being an autocratic dictatorship, with fascist leanings.

When the Patriot Act allows the president on his intelligence and say-so alone to pick up American citizens and render them to foreign black-site prisons in places like Angola for torture, with no access to attorneys, no charges, and no rights of any kind, human or otherwise- what's not to understand about this?

This is illegal in all civilized nations of the world, and we have signed treaties and accords testifying to our acceptance of these international rules of contact.

All were violated by the Tush administration.

This will be the issue that defines the Tush administration and the neocons for all history.

Add to that the illegal wiretapping/data mining of every keystroke of every computer in America, every phone call since February 01, not after 9/11 as the Tush's lied about, and the systematic use of that information to destroy political opponents in state elections nationwide, and the federal attorney firings based on political grounds, and you have an autocratic dictatorship in line with Pinochet in Chile, or Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Really pretty simple to understand that what happened here was the shredding of the constitution for personal, corporate, and political gain by people who should be imprisoned for this as well as war crimes related to the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq and the murder of a million of that nation's citizens.

[Omaha]

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/JKRETZ%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Wow, Lorax sure reads like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! As a Colbert Conservative let me remind you that “might has made right� since before Columbus landed on Cuba or wherever in 1492. Get over it.

Now I am not saying the Founding Fathers were wrong for intentionally breaking a legally binding contract that the Colonies had with Mother England. Those great men needed their freedom to exercise their God-given rights.

Thank goodness they knew that what was “good for the goose was not good for the gander.� After the nation was formed and they became their own masters rather than servants of Mother England, they kept indentured servitude legal.

Our founding fathers wanted to restrict the vote to white-property owing males. Why? Because they were the only ones smart enough and independent enough to honestly voice their opinion. I think the country started going down hill ever since the property requirement for voting was removed!

We should have stuck with the original intent of our Founding Fathers and made laws that prohibited the riff raff from engaging in our great representational democracy. The playing field on which we all compete was as flat and even as it needed to be back in 1791.

Every revisionist change made by activist judges and other bottom feeders since then has just made a great nation weaker. This country started sliding down the slippery path to mediocrity when it started extending to everybody the rights and privileges that were originally meant for the elite few.

The Social Darwinist in me makes me believe that we were rightfully using our Manifest Destiny as God’s chosen people to take from the Native Americans that which they could not adequately develop and, more importantly, could not hold. The same applies, of course, to our foreign policy as well.

Just my 2 cents worth, what do you think?

[ccbatson]

Central to fascism is that the State [[or the collective) is the focus of the system. Corporatism...or, capitalism as I take you to mean by the term, is the opposite of that and therefore incompatible with Fascism.

[rb336]

Central to fascism is that the State [[or the collective) is the focus of the system. Corporatism...or, capitalism as I take you to mean by the term, is the opposite of that and therefore incompatible with Fascism.

once again, showing how to re-define a term in totally historically inaccurate ways to prove a point that you can't make with actual facts

[otter]

Bats, did you actually read the original link and, if so, actually think? You appear not to know what you're talking about.

O.

[ccbatson]

Yes, and if you look earlier in this thread, you will see how I came to this position regarding Rushkoff's piece and what "corporatism" is, or isn't.

[oladub]

Omaha- "Our founding fathers wanted to restrict the vote to white-property owing males."

Wanted? Not sure but thats part of what they left behind. Another part of original intent was the inclusion of an amendment mechanism to modify the Constitution. It was this provision, more than activist judges and other bottom feeders, that expanded voting rights.

Jefferson, a slaveholder, is said to have wanted to restrict slavery. He got, instead, a Constitution that outlawed slavery 60 years later.

Its the 'activist judges and other bottom feeders' you mentioned who have done so much for manifest destiny by allowing a string of illegal wars funded with fiat money and debt and have also ruled that corporations are artificial persons who can be given our tax money to offset their mismanagement. Which brings us back to a government that allow the corporatization of our lives.

When Congress passed Bush's Wall Street bailout just weeks before an election, govcorp America knew that it had won - that Americans would lamely accept whatever the federal government and its large corporate owners wanted.

[jams]

Wanted? Not sure but thats part of what they left behind. Another part of original intent was the inclusion of an amendment mechanism to modify the Constitution. It was this provision, more than activist judges and other bottom feeders, that expanded voting rights.

Jefferson, a slaveholder, is said to have wanted to restrict slavery. He got, instead, a Constitution that outlawed slavery 60 years later.

Its the 'activist judges and other bottom feeders' you mentioned who have done so much for manifest destiny by allowing a string of illegal wars funded with fiat money and debt and have also ruled that corporations are artificial persons who can be given our tax money to offset their mismanagement. Which brings us back to a government that allow the corporatization of our lives.

When Congress passed Bush's Wall Street bailout just weeks before an election, govcorp America knew that it had won - that Americans would lamely accept whatever the federal government and its large corporate owners wanted.

Congrats Omaha, another one missed the message.

I'm so jealous of your ability playing the role that requires real reading comprehension to understand he message.

[oladub]

Jams, do let us in on 'the message' in your own words.

[Lorax]

Central to fascism is that the State [[or the collective) is the focus of the system. Corporatism...or, capitalism as I take you to mean by the term, is the opposite of that and therefore incompatible with Fascism.

Wrong again, Batcrap.

What is so difficult about learning for you?

Fascism is the co-mingling of corporate and government interests, with the corporations having the upper hand. End of story. Nothing more.

Where are you getting your information from? The Limbaugh Limbo Letter? The Hannity Screed for the Socially Retarded?

God it's hard to get some people to learn up from down.

[rb336]

Yes, and if you look earlier in this thread, you will see how I came to this position regarding Rushkoff's piece and what "corporatism" is, or isn't.

ok, here is what you said:

His conclusion that corporatism is a bad thing is erroneous and an oversimplification [[propaganda like).

now how, exactly, does that show anything? what specifically is wrong? it certainly doesn't sound like you read the article. he is dead-on:

"In the very best years, corporatism worked by extracting value from
the periphery and redirecting it to the center—away from people and
toward corporate monopolies. Now, even though that wellspring of
prosperity has run dry, we continue to dig deeper into the ground for
resources to keep the errant system running. "

[Patrick]

Would the Bush administration been as "scary" had 9/11 not happened?

[ccbatson]

Puhlenty is wrong...What corporate monopolies? [[they are illegal in case you didn't know that...only coercive government monopolies are legal...go figure). What is a corporation? A collection of individuals [[individuals are people...in case you didn't know....the only time that money comes away from people is when government seizes it and power). What to the people profiting in a corporation do with THEIR profits? Invest it, spend it, etc....right back into the economy employing and providing a living for????? You guessed it.....PEOPLE.

[rb336]

7 companies control 90%+ of the media outlets. 5 companies control the vast majority of the energy industry and last i checked, at least 2 of those have at least 1 person in common on their boards. de-facto monopolies.

[ccbatson]

You realize that "mono" means one, don't you? Not 7, not 5, 1.

I said that monopolies were illegal [[except government coercive monopolies). I didn't say that this was a good thing.

[rb336]

when 7 act as 1 or 5 act as 1, what is the difference? there is none

[ccbatson]

Nice try, too bad it doesn't work. Try logic...what if 100, or 1000, or whatever number you like "act as one"

Thanks Rb...I got a nice chuckle out of that one...intended, or not.

[rb336]

reductio ad absurdum arguments like that, bats, are another logical fallacy

[Lorax]

Look, Batcrap, you need to look up and read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and realize that monopolies can mean as few as one, or as many as half a dozen corporations monopolizing the business interests of any given industry. This is dependent on the size of that industry, and only gets government interested in it when monopolizing that industry has a detrimental effect on the people.

Bottom line is that no corporation should be too big to fail. All businesses, banks included should be local, lend locally, and have no measurable effect on the economy as a whole should they go under.

Repugnicans don't believe in this, they believe in just the opposite. The mantra of the Reich the last 8 years was to allow businesses to screw the American public- especially gargantuan utilities like FPL who have no competition, and should be government owned and run.

The service couldn't be any worse.

[ccbatson]

People fill the roles assigned by governments...they are not individual people.

[Lorax]

People fill the roles assigned by governments...they are not individual people.

What?

[Lorax]

According to Repugnicans, corporations are people too! They would love nothing more than extending rights to corporations that individuals themselves hold here in America, and have tried under the Tushies.

Talk about the middle finger of fascism- there you have it!

[ccbatson]

By "people" I mean individuals...FREE individuals. In that sense, government is the opposite of the meaning of the word. Now it should make more sense to you.

[ccbatson]

I have worked for, and now own [[as a partner) a corporation [[or 2).

It still makes no sense TO YOU. I can live with that.

[Lorax]

All I can say to this vague discussion of what makes one free versus what does not is that now we're going to have a strong dose of regulation to keep these fascist corporate behemoths in line.

I look forward to smaller sized banks, industries, that if one or more fail, they aren't too large to fail and leave an indelible mark on our society.

Under repugnican rule, we worship the CEO and the endless expansion of business, monopolies, as if they're a good thing.

Thank god I still have more than Walmart to shop at where I live, unlike much of middle America, and in fact, have never, and will never step foot in one of them.

My particular protest.