BREAKING NEWS: ARIZONA CONGRESS WOMAN SHOT IN HEAD!

[BigBallinStalin]

If politicians became politicians for such lofty goals, then why do problems like vested interests always persist in government (especially the US)?

It is difficult to answer your question because the answers are many, and complex.

So I will condense it down to this, the premise of your question suggests that politicians are somehow fundamentally different from you, me, joe schmo on the street corner. There is no difference. They're persuadable, corruptible, egotistical, can get angry, can be misled, can be happy, can be inspirational, can be you or me.

No, it doesn't. No where did I imply or state that. Would you like to reroll?

If there is a problem, the problem isn't with the people, it is with the system. There is massive structural failings. It has bit by bit, intentionally or accidentally, evolved into a monster that incentivizes the actors to play by the monsters rules.

Which is mostly why I am largely sceptical about the "tea party". It is simply more meat for the monster.

If you have inflexible principles that conflict with the monsters interests you will be marginalized and/or removed.

A system doesn't work on its own. It's operated by the people themselves. You need to examine a politician's incentives to explain why vested interests are a problem with any government.


How would you define "vested interests" and "government"?

[Woodruff]

Having security at the event was entirely under her control. She also could have held it indoors where people passed through doors past discrete security. She also could have told people not to bring children near the podium.

She could have taken any number of simple, reasonable precautions to protect her constituents, especially the children.

She did none of these.

Fascinating. In your attempts to blame her for the shooting (which again, she had no control over), you are advocating for limiting her constituents to reasonable access to their elected representative? And I thought we lived in a free and open democratic republic.

Your inability to read the written word is fascinating. If it's not intentional, that is.

Are you going to now blame all 535 members of Congress for putting their constituents at risk for every time they have appeared in public? With access comes opportunity. It's what we elect or Congresspeople to do - to listen and represent us.
Only that violent punk can be held responsible for putting people's lives at risk.

For directly putting them at risk, sure. But for creating conditions in which it was allowed to happen, no.

[Phatscotty]

First of all, as far as I have read, the real criticism is that certain persons with a pulpit have been irresponsible. And of course those persons will play the victim card faster than Phatscotty can swallow a right wing talking point. Also they will carry on regardless with the irresponsible speech, and the only people who will try to be more responsible with what they say, are the people who were being responsible in the first place.

Of course they should play the victim card since there is still NO EVIDENCE that Loughner even knew about their comments muchless actually followed them. The blame game has failed miserably except for to come back and smack the liberals senseless. (Oops, I guess I'm to blame for the next assault for promoting slapping people. )

This is the only way they can attack Palin and the tea party right. Combine that with a "terrific and amazing" speech Obama gave in the wake, and we have a new M.O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qnGz6pYCMU Obama advisor says Obama needs "his Oklahoma City" and he can turn it around when "he finds the right moment". Mr. Obama, the Tuscon shooting is the right moment. This is confirmed by his bump in approval, as well as less approval of the Tea Party. There is a new game in town, and facts have no part in it.

I think the Left made the call that this was "the event" and they already had to play book on how to respond in a way that damages the Right. This goes from the top down, including Obama personally calling Sheriff Dupnick to thank him.

I know for a fact millions of people have it in the back of their head "The Tea Party is resposnible for the shooting". But what I don't get is that people who actually would believe that are already on the hard left or ignorant anyways, and that is confirmed by the (3 now) people at my work have comes up to me asking about the shooting and linking it at some point to the right. I know 2 of them well, and they don't give a shit about anything accept for where they are going for drinks tonight.

[Woodruff]

This is the only way they can attack Palin and the tea party right.

Perhaps the Tea Party. But it's not even remotely the only way to attack Palin. From my vantage point, it appears to me that Palin is her own worst enemy.

[Phatscotty]

This is the only way they can attack Palin and the tea party right.

Perhaps the Tea Party. But it's not even remotely the only way to attack Palin. From my vantage point, it appears to me that Palin is her own worst enemy.

attack...effectively. Palin may not be harmed, (even if Bill Maher ups his Palin joke count from 12 per show to 18).

The main focus of the Tea Party, for the short term overall strategy, is to take back the Senate, and elect a president who will sign a repeal, among other things.

[Woodruff]

This is the only way they can attack Palin and the tea party right.

Perhaps the Tea Party. But it's not even remotely the only way to attack Palin. From my vantage point, it appears to me that Palin is her own worst enemy.

attack...effectively. Palin may not be harmed, (even if Bill Maher ups his Palin joke count from 12 per show to 18).

I was speaking of "effectively". Palin essentially has zero chance at being elected to anything above dog catcher at this point. The American public may be stupid, but she's frankly made them a hell of a lot smarter where she's concerned.

The main focus of the Tea Party, for the short term overall strategy, is to take back the Senate, and elect a president who will sign a repeal, among other things.

At which point they will become just like the Democrats and Republicans, I suspect.

[mpjh]

lol, absolutely -- the corporate chieftains will take them to the woodshed and read them the rules of the road

[Phatscotty]

lol, absolutely -- the corporate chieftains will take them to the woodshed and read them the rules of the road

are these the same corporate cheiftans who are in Obamas pocket? I guess we will have to watch people like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Allan West and see if they sell out. If they do not, then we will have more in 2012.

I understand that movements needs money, and corporations do participate, and any corporation that does participate will definitely only be interested in hijacking the tea party, because they could not possibly be interested in lower taxes or less regulation....

[mpjh]

If you think there is any difference between Bush, Obama, and Palin and how the government would function under each, then you are delusional.

[Phatscotty]

If you think there is any difference between Bush, Obama, and Palin and how the government would function under each, then you are delusional.

I do not care for all 3 of them, so I would have to agree with you. Bush was overpowered by "them", Palin wouldn't stand a chance, and Obama came with them in his pocket, and he in theirs.

We need to select stronger people in the primary process, people like George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

[mpjh]

or Mao, che, franz fanon, amil cabral, even aliende would be an improvement

[GreecePwns]

[Woodruff]

lol, absolutely -- the corporate chieftains will take them to the woodshed and read them the rules of the road

are these the same corporate cheiftans who are in Obamas pocket?

Why is it you have to bring Obama's name up? Surely, you know what I think of Obama regarding being a corporate sellout? But of course, Phatscotty, not being a Repubilican, can't help but rail against everything Democratic.

I guess we will have to watch people like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Allan West and see if they sell out. If they do not, then we will have more in 2012.

I have SOME faith in Rand Paul...though that's mostly because of his father. I don't have much faith in the others.

I understand that movements needs money, and corporations do participate, and any corporation that does participate will definitely only be interested in hijacking the tea party, because they could not possibly be interested in lower taxes or less regulation....

Do you even think about what you type?

Of COURSE they're interested in "less regulation". How stupid do you have to be to believe that they're not? As well, how stupid do you have to be to believe that's necessarily a good thing?

Of COURSE they're interested in "lower taxes on corporations". How stupid do you have to be to believe that they're not? As well, how stupid do you have to be to believe that's necessarily a good thing?

The things you mention are my primary concerns about the Tea Party and why I think they will EASILY and SNUGLY fit into the pockets of Corporate America.

If you think there is any difference between Bush, Obama, and Palin and how the government would function under each, then you are delusional.

Actually, I think Palin would be far worse than Bush or Obama. The latter two, much as I dislike both, have some sense of restraint and conscience...I do not believe that she does in either respect.

If you think there is any difference between Bush, Obama, and Palin and how the government would function under each, then you are delusional.

I do not care for all 3 of them, so I would have to agree with you. Bush was overpowered by "them", Palin wouldn't stand a chance, and Obama came with them in his pocket, and he in theirs.

What? You believe that Obama is more in line with Corporate America than Bush was? Holy crap.

[Night Strike]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

[Woodruff]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I saw a video clip of it...that was pretty great.

[jbrettlip]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I am so glad she survived that shooting from that crazy Palin supporter.....

[PLAYER57832]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I saw a video clip of it...that was pretty great.

I figured that was why this thread was revived. Definitely a good moment, worthy of mention. (one of the times I DID turn to the tv news to see . )

[Night Strike]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I saw a video clip of it...that was pretty great.

I figured that was why this thread was revived. Definitely a good moment, worthy of mention. (one of the times I DID turn to the tv news to see . )

Hence the bump.

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I am so glad she survived that shooting from that crazy Palin supporter.....

[Woodruff]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I am so glad she survived that shooting from that crazy Palin supporter.....

Based on what I have perceived to be jbrettlip's politics, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[Night Strike]

The ONE good thing about the debt ceiling vote: Gabrielle Giffords was back in the chamber and cast her vote.

I am so glad she survived that shooting from that crazy Palin supporter.....

Based on what I have perceived to be jbrettlip's politics, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Oh yeah, you're probably right. Sarcasm tends to fail on the internet.

[Phatscotty]

The big lie. all you have to do is repeat it enough.



This BS about linking the shooter to Sarah Palin is complete murder-libel. He had not political affiliation, but he did have a personal interest in the victim. Just another BIG LIE

[CreepersWiener]

Did she vote for or against the bill?

[Night Strike]

For it.

[Woodruff]

The big lie. all you have to do is repeat it enough.

Remember the election of 2008 and 2010. Worst economy ever? Well, I guess now it's twice as bad as it was then? So....um....well.....blame one focal point Bush rather than admit it was us who spent up all our home equity on complete BS and spent money into the future based on expected real estate gains, and then when our great grandparents generation game back from the grave to smack us across our faces in disgrace, we walked away from the mortgages and left the banks holding the bag right, and then the gov't had to step in and Monopolize the entire real estate loan industry, right? I find it completely naive from anyone who says "where were all these people when Bush was doing this, how come you weren't saying shit then?" To all those people, FU, because I and many other people were right F'n there okay? I WAS THERE MAN!

Doesn't matter. 900 billion in tax cuts and 700 billion for wars for 6 years = Depression. Yet in an environment and a mindset that 7 trillion dollars in bailouts and stimulus and entitlement and government expansion in just 3 years = "making progress"

Anyone else who is shocked to learn that our federal debt has went from 7 trillion to 14.3 trillion in just 29 months, well, you are the one sucker at the poker table, and the dealer is inflating the deck against you for the rest of your life.
The amount we are going to be asked to repay in interest probably will not be agreeable to the next generation coming around the corner. It's a recipe for disaster. Are you really surprised when we just raised it another 2.7 trillion, with plans (by some no doubt) to raise it again by over 3 trillion more just after the 2012 election(20 trillion)? Sweep that one right under the rug. Make us forget baby! And I'm still right here.

This BS about linking the shooter to Sarah Palin is complete murder-libel. He had not political affiliation, but he did have a personal interest in the victim. Just another BIG LIE

You realize that this massive rant is in response to a sarcastic statement by someone whose politics are essentially the same as yours, right?

[jbrettlip]

thanks for pointing out what I thought was obvious Woody. It is just the world we live in, that people can say whatever stupid shit they want, and when it is proven wrong, they can act like it never happened. MSNBC did it with Gifford's shooter, they also blamed Fox for saying the Ft Hood shooter was an islamic terrorist when "all the facts weren't known" and then dropped that angle silently. Revently and closer to home, the whole Insomnia Red thing that I was flamed for calling bullshit on, when anyone with half a brain (me included) should have seen right through her story. I don't know why our society can't admit when they are wrong. I guess because then progressives would never have anyhting else to say, after all the apologies.