General Music Chat

Just remember, the state is just the puppet.
Wall Street is the puppeteer.

Puppets indeed. For a careful accounting of the top "puppeteers" you can see clearly who bought the lions share of political influence over the last 20 years in Washington and which political party benefited and became indebted by it. The top 20 deserves close examination and understanding to get a clear picture of the problem. Take a good long look Mike as these unvarnished numbers may surprise you.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Just remember, the state is just the puppet.
Wall Street is the puppeteer.

Puppets indeed. For a careful accounting of the top "puppeteers" you can see clearly who bought the lions share of political influence over the last 20 years in Washington and which political party benefited and became indebted by it. The top 20 deserves close examination and understanding to get a clear picture of the problem. Take a good long look Mike as these unvarnished numbers may surprise you.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Excellent Info Johnny... Hers the billion Dollar Question: How does either party come up with these funds? A: Sell Goods & Services accordingly. The next time you buy something from American Crystal Sugar, remember which party that will support...

I was reading an interview with a political psychologist, here's some things I found interesting in it:

RH: From a moral standpoint, what’s the difference in the outlook of the left and the right?

Haidt: To begin with, left and right have different understandings of fairness. The left tends to focus on equality, with an emphasis on equality of outcome. In contrast, the right cares exclusively about proportionality of outcome: if outcomes are equalized when deservingness isn’t the same, they consider that an abomination. This is why welfare is such a contentious issue. When social conservatives look at people who might have contributed to their own sorry state, they’re deeply offended by the thought of bailing them out, but on the left, compassion for those who are suffering is more widespread. There’s a basic difference in moral attitude about how each side thinks about “fairness.”

RH: Does it come down to the left and right just having fundamentally different ideas of how things should be?

Haidt: Well, both sides care about fairness, and both sides care about liberty–but on the right, their version of fairness is much more focused on catching cheaters and slackers. The idea of a person getting something for nothing really makes their blood boil. That’s why we had Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” moment during Obama’s healthcare speech in 2009. It was over the question of whether illegal immigrants can get free healthcare–something that deeply offends the right’s sense of what’s morally correct. On the left, people approach that issue from the perspective of compassion: some vulnerable, hardworking illegal immigrant is here in America and gets hit by a car, what should happen to him? Are we going to let him die? It’s a fundamental difference of viewpoint, but rational debate leads nowhere because you can’t change people’s minds on moral and political issues with arguments and evidence.

RH: Why not?

Haidt: Political views aren’t like views about factual matters. If you believe that it’s faster to drive to the airport than take mass transit, and I give you evidence that mass transit is faster, there’s a good chance that I’ll change your mind, because your goal is actually to get to the airport more quickly. With political and moral questions, our goal isn’t “the truth.” That’s why it’s always vital to bear in mind the importance of group membership when trying to understand political differences. Political beliefs act as badges of membership, badges that say who we are and give us a sense of meaning and purpose. They’re badges that we display to show our moral character. So simply refuting someone’s views about global warming or needle-exchange programs or abortion or anything else will have little effect, because people aren’t going to betray their team because you show them evidence that they’re wrong.

Just remember, the state is just the puppet.
Wall Street is the puppeteer.

Puppets indeed. For a careful accounting of the top "puppeteers" you can see clearly who bought the lions share of political influence over the last 20 years in Washington and which political party benefited and became indebted by it. The top 20 deserves close examination and understanding to get a clear picture of the problem. Take a good long look Mike as these unvarnished numbers may surprise you.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Businesses choose which party to donate to based on how much they believe they will get paid in return. Same as when we try to decide to sign on to ASCAP or BMI... That explains everything.

I was reading an interview with a political psychologist, here's some things I found interesting in it:

RH: From a moral standpoint, what’s the difference in the outlook of the left and the right?

Haidt: To begin with, left and right have different understandings of fairness. The left tends to focus on equality, with an emphasis on equality of outcome. In contrast, the right cares exclusively about proportionality of outcome: if outcomes are equalized when deservingness isn’t the same, they consider that an abomination. This is why welfare is such a contentious issue. When social conservatives look at people who might have contributed to their own sorry state, they’re deeply offended by the thought of bailing them out, but on the left, compassion for those who are suffering is more widespread. There’s a basic difference in moral attitude about how each side thinks about “fairness.”

RH: Does it come down to the left and right just having fundamentally different ideas of how things should be?

Haidt: Well, both sides care about fairness, and both sides care about liberty–but on the right, their version of fairness is much more focused on catching cheaters and slackers. The idea of a person getting something for nothing really makes their blood boil. That’s why we had Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” moment during Obama’s healthcare speech in 2009. It was over the question of whether illegal immigrants can get free healthcare–something that deeply offends the right’s sense of what’s morally correct. On the left, people approach that issue from the perspective of compassion: some vulnerable, hardworking illegal immigrant is here in America and gets hit by a car, what should happen to him? Are we going to let him die? It’s a fundamental difference of viewpoint, but rational debate leads nowhere because you can’t change people’s minds on moral and political issues with arguments and evidence.

RH: Why not?

Haidt: Political views aren’t like views about factual matters. If you believe that it’s faster to drive to the airport than take mass transit, and I give you evidence that mass transit is faster, there’s a good chance that I’ll change your mind, because your goal is actually to get to the airport more quickly. With political and moral questions, our goal isn’t “the truth.” That’s why it’s always vital to bear in mind the importance of group membership when trying to understand political differences. Political beliefs act as badges of membership, badges that say who we are and give us a sense of meaning and purpose. They’re badges that we display to show our moral character. So simply refuting someone’s views about global warming or needle-exchange programs or abortion or anything else will have little effect, because people aren’t going to betray their team because you show them evidence that they’re wrong.

First, I don't know were you dug this up and who the heck this guy is,,, but you are actually bringing up the fundamental problem, that outlines how far off, from what is important, and how weak leadership is on all sides of the American equation.

Second, Crony capitalism must stop. The leaders elected must not be influenced by cash. They must not be lining their pockets in lieu of making leadership decisions.

Third, this to explain my reason why all our present leaders are so WRONG.
I know you don't like the constitution Kramer,,, but the largest fundamental principle behind it was to allow the individual to succeed. Our founding fathers understood that NO ONE PERSON is as equal as the next, However,, to avoid anarchy they realized the need for a form of government that was flexible, but also recognized the value of the individual to contribute to the overall wealth and health of the society they wanted to form.

In other words Society is only as great as the individuals that are allowed to succeed and ad value in ways that both republicans and democrats have forgotten. The thinking has become reversed. A great society will create great citizens,,,, Law abiding citizens living in fear of the government they have surrendered their freedom too.

I'll finnish this some other time,,,, That's enough to start. You think about it.

did you know buying BRAWNY Paper Towels supports the Koch Brothers? ..is that what you want for your children?

and there lies the dilemma, I LOVES BRAWNY Paper Towels cause they are the best value for your dollar..

did you know buying BRAWNY Paper Towels supports the Koch Brothers? ..is that what you want for your children?

Haha,

And Koch industries is only ranked 76th among the highest political donors. They are small potatoes. Check out the top 10. What is with all these civil service employee unions donating 50 million dollars each to political candidates?? Rigging the game in their favor to secure pie in the sky entitlements that can never be paid. No wonder fed and state governments are all going broke. This is the formula for bankruptcy in a nutshell.

Union paid political influence is 20 times that of the Koch brothers but you never hear the actual numbers at Huffington Post.

I was reading an interview with a political psychologist, here's some things I found interesting in it:

RH: From a moral standpoint, what’s the difference in the outlook of the left and the right?

Haidt: To begin with, left and right have different understandings of fairness. The left tends to focus on equality, with an emphasis on equality of outcome. In contrast, the right cares exclusively about proportionality of outcome: if outcomes are equalized when deservingness isn’t the same, they consider that an abomination. This is why welfare is such a contentious issue. When social conservatives look at people who might have contributed to their own sorry state, they’re deeply offended by the thought of bailing them out, but on the left, compassion for those who are suffering is more widespread. There’s a basic difference in moral attitude about how each side thinks about “fairness.”

RH: Does it come down to the left and right just having fundamentally different ideas of how things should be?

Haidt: Well, both sides care about fairness, and both sides care about liberty–but on the right, their version of fairness is much more focused on catching cheaters and slackers. The idea of a person getting something for nothing really makes their blood boil. That’s why we had Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” moment during Obama’s healthcare speech in 2009. It was over the question of whether illegal immigrants can get free healthcare–something that deeply offends the right’s sense of what’s morally correct. On the left, people approach that issue from the perspective of compassion: some vulnerable, hardworking illegal immigrant is here in America and gets hit by a car, what should happen to him? Are we going to let him die? It’s a fundamental difference of viewpoint, but rational debate leads nowhere because you can’t change people’s minds on moral and political issues with arguments and evidence.

RH: Why not?

Haidt: Political views aren’t like views about factual matters. If you believe that it’s faster to drive to the airport than take mass transit, and I give you evidence that mass transit is faster, there’s a good chance that I’ll change your mind, because your goal is actually to get to the airport more quickly. With political and moral questions, our goal isn’t “the truth.” That’s why it’s always vital to bear in mind the importance of group membership when trying to understand political differences. Political beliefs act as badges of membership, badges that say who we are and give us a sense of meaning and purpose. They’re badges that we display to show our moral character. So simply refuting someone’s views about global warming or needle-exchange programs or abortion or anything else will have little effect, because people aren’t going to betray their team because you show them evidence that they’re wrong.

First, I don't know were you dug this up and who the heck this guy is,,, but you are actually bringing up the fundamental problem, that outlines how far off, from what is important, and how weak leadership is on all sides of the American equation.

Second, Crony capitalism must stop. The leaders elected must not be influenced by cash. They must not be lining their pockets in lieu of making leadership decisions.

Third, this to explain my reason why all our present leaders are so WRONG.
I know you don't like the constitution Kramer,,, but the largest fundamental principle behind it was to allow the individual to succeed. Our founding fathers understood that NO ONE PERSON is as equal as the next, However,, to avoid anarchy they realized the need for a form of government that was flexible, but also recognized the value of the individual to contribute to the overall wealth and health of the society they wanted to form.

In other words Society is only as great as the individuals that are allowed to succeed and ad value in ways that both republicans and democrats have forgotten. The thinking has become reversed. A great society will create great citizens,,,, Law abiding citizens living in fear of the government they have surrendered their freedom too.

I'll finnish this some other time,,,, That's enough to start. You think about it.

Jeez glenn, you make 10 completely hysterical and insane posts elsewhere, then you come along and actually make a half-decent response like this. I don't know what to make of you, but bipolar disorder comes to mind. Since I'm responding to the nice(r) glenn, I will be civil in this response...

I think I finally see why you hold some of the views that you do. You see everyone as individual, as you stated, but you also agree that nobody can have too much power. But isn't that exactly what we have now? Koch borthers controlling entire companies that exist only to create and distribute propaganda.. several influential media men on their payroll, etc.. and all to dismantle freedoms and regulations that get in their way of making more profits.

Anyways, I have read uncountable journal entries, letters, and accounts of the founders, and a lot of it is really eye-opening regarding their discussions in letter between each other regarding the constitution writing.. their views on WHY they made the bill of rights, and why they made that bill the first 10 amendments is incredible to read. More impressive is their debates on how to word everything, and their insights and thoughts behind those ideals. Upon reading their rational, compared to the ways the laws are interpreted today, it makes me sick; as it's clear that the constitution has been dismantled by "loose interpretation" long before the Patriot act, NDAA, and so many other new acts that destroy the rights that we're supposed to be guaranteed.

When I say it's outdated, I mean that it cannot withstand today's level of interpretation.. and evidence supports that claim, as more than half of the first 10 amendments have been circumvented.

I believe strongly in every one of those amendments as they were originally intended. I would love to see them re-written to be more bulletproof from today's twisted vocabulary where we have clearly redefined words in order to change our interpretation of many things, but most importantly, the constitution.

I even support the 2nd amendment, as it was intended.

And there's why you and me cannot get along, glenn. I've read more historical documents and garnered facts from the source, while you are given tainted and biased information from bloggers and right-wing journalists. Here's your chance to educate yourself- here's a link to a letter written by jefferson, and the entire site is quite thorough for what it's worth. If you don't want to believe that it's real, you can always go to the library of congress, take a historical document specialist and handwriting specialist with you and confirm the original documents..

In all truth glenn, I rahter think you would enjoy this site if you give it a chance, it's pure history.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... echs8.html