If not for the wonks in the backroom nothing would ever get accomplished. If you can not see the need for experienced, pragmatic professionals able to translate the "yelling ad screaming" into coherent policy proposals your destined to fail. There will be great stories to tell of the failed struggle though. Standing on ceremony is noble but pissing in the wind comes back at you twice as hard.
The law obviously doesn't mean much to the powers that be. Especially when you consider that corporate lobbyists are paying our representatives to protect their business interests while Congress makes a complete mockery of the rule of law. And then they expect us to stand quietly and follow the rules while they rob us.
Some Wall Street traders would not think twice about injecting you with poison, and then taking life insurance policies on you. just sayin (it's more or less what they got away with in 2008, especially GS, if you consider sub-prime mortgages, and credit-default swaps)
Ignorance. As though the conservative representatives are any less corrupt than the liberal ones. They're all corrupt. The political system is broken. Those people don't represent me.
I don't see how Congress encouraging sub-prime lending is tantamount to insurance fraud. Don't get me wrong. Fraudulent acts should be illegal and regulated against, but that doesn't mean that legislators should prohibit non-violent behaviors. What needs to change is the notion that Congress can provide for us, because more frequently than naught their actions benefit moneyed interests rather than our general welfare.
pretty good little rant here: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tFz1VVXsWRU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> but then you get garbage like this: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nd-across-the-board-debt-forgiveness-for-all/
How could a free market supporter have a corrupt relationship with a private company? That makes no sense. If the government doesn't act in the market then how would their be corruption? Both parties are responsible, but only one ideology is conducive to an unhealthy relationship between government and business.
There is some truth to this, but it ignores the fact that these "actual solutions" often come at the expense of popular legislative efforts, effective ideas, or honest discussion (e.g., Obamacare or the Bush tax cut extension). Basically, inasmuch as "actual solutions" typically maintain the status quo, anger should be expected.
LOL, this is the part everyone tends to leave out. Anyway, from what I understand, about 150 people marched from the Chase Tower to City Hall. That's about 3 blocks. Really, Houston? 3 blocks? Damn, we suck at protesting.
the minute there is a centralized leadership or group saying "we are in charge and here is our message" is the minute that the whole thing gets hijacked like the RNC/fox news co-opted the tea party, which was started by ron paul supporters to protest against bush. and the protestors i have a problem with are the ones who still buy into the two party system and think obama is the solution. or even worse, the ones who recognize that obama is just another corporate/wall st. puppet, but will vote for him next year anyway. i see people in the D&D everyday saying how much they disagree what obama has done, but they are going to vote for him still...why? you are the ones perpetuating the problem! nothing will be resolved as long as we continue w/ the 2 party monopoly. stop voting for republicans and democrats and you will see "change" pretty quickly. most politicians have no real talent outside being corporate whores and when you take their "career" away from them they might start acting right in order to get it back.
Probably because our economy hasn't been affected as much as the rest of the country. We're well diversified with our local industries.
The Supreme Court Presidents will come and go - no matter how awful a President is, the longest he'll be around is 8 years. But justices are appointed to the Supreme Court for life, and their rulings will influence generations of Americans. Right now, we have a radical conservative bloc on the court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, plus a largely sympathetic Kennedy) that has fundamentally changed politics for the worse through their Citizens United decision. If we see another conservative president, we're likely to see a conservative super-majority on the court (Ginsburg will definitely retire in the next 5 years). The repercussions could be extremely damaging to our social and political landscape. I have my idealistic moments, but ultimately I'm a pragmatist when it comes to politics. So while I 100% agree that the 2-party system needs to be busted, I'm not willing to risk 50 years of radically conservative courts just to make a point. IMHO, the best place to start empowering third-party or unaffiliated candidates is at the local level. It will take probably 20 years, but eventually some of these candidates will seep upwards (hopefully). (note - for those who have read similar posts from me in the past, sorry for being a stuck record)
Who in Congress actually supports free markets? Conservatives and liberals use free market rhetoric to maintain their positions of power. That's how a "free market supporter" can have a corrupt relationship with private business: they aren't actually in favor of free markets. They are in favor of using the law to benefit their corporate financiers. Politicians don't support any policy based on their own beliefs. The only thing politicians believe in is power.
Folks need to be camped out in front of the S. Ct. Put pressure on the bastards. Marbury vs.Madison needs to be overturned. The Consitution doesn't really say that 5 unelected folks should alone be in charge of interpretting it --essentially be able to overturn any law voted in by large majorities in Congress and signed by the president because they don't think it is "unconstitutional". That being said, there is something to be said for the general concept of an independent judiciary. It is just that it has gotten out of hand. We need to start studying again what happend during the FDR era when he had the problem with the old farts on the Court trying to block needed economic change.
