“In order for this idea to work, it has to be so simple even a Republican can understand it.
1. "Political contributions" are no longer protected under the First Amendment. Just as "yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater" never was.
2. Campaigns will be publicly financed, with a limit of X-dollars per candidate.
3. The election season runs from (REASONABLE DATE) to (OTHER, LATER REASONABLE DATE.) Every personally-financed ad you run before that time, costs you the equivalent amount of public $$ during the mandated season.
4. The FCC will make X amount of airtime available to candidates on major networks. The networks will be reimbursed by the People.
“The biggest problem - and the biggest irony - with this movement is...if you actually do boil everything down to a simple message, what you get is: "Re-Regulation Now!" or "We Want Rules!"...possibly the least sexy catchphrases ever created. But that's what everyone from the environmentalists to the "anti-capitalists" (a misnomer) to the Just-Plain-Pissed-Off wants.
We don't mind you getting rich. We just don't think you should be able to cheat to do it.”
Katharine Krueger on Nov 1, 2011 at 19:22:27
“Hopefully, regulation is not the chosen strategy to the problem. I'd like everyone to get educated about the Triple Bottom Line. TBL accounting means expanding the traditional financial reporting framework to take into account ecological and social performance in addition to financial performance. So we value caring and compassion toward the earth and people, and we "de-merit" harm to earth and people.
If we redefine profit, folks that want to be competitive can do so, but on sustainable terms. Several folks have come up with realistic descriptions of what a Caring and Compassionate Economy would look like. I recommend Riane Eisler's The Real Wealth of Nations as a good read.”
RedDogBear on Nov 1, 2011 at 19:16:52
“I don't agree at all that that "re-regulate now" is the core message. I think things like "invest in America" "make America a world leader" "care for people not corporations" could be better alternatives.
And yes regulation is a part of the required actions but other things are as well such as investing money in basic US infrastructure that has been ignored for decades. Its so pathetic that we can build schools, roads, bridges, and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan without even considering the cost but when it comes to building something in the US that is considered a waste of money.”
“Great, great article. No one understands America - American media in particular - better than Matt and Trey. Their depiction of the people of South Park as this unhinged mob that swings wildly from left to right is such a spot-on parody of how the media tries - and far too often succeeds - to manipulate us.
Every time I see Tea Partiers or Code Pink all I can think of is the mob going "ROBBLE ROBBLE ROBBLE!" and Stan pinching the bridge of his nose and saying "Goddamnit our parents suck."
Curiously, even with all the talking poo and bloody discharges spewing from the Virgin Mary and random bashing of everyone and everything in the universe...South Park is far and away the most moral show on television. There's an actual lesson - straight out of our parents' moral rulebooks - in just about every show. (Except for "Jakovasaurus." That one just sucked.)
P.S. Has anyone considered the horrifying thought that it actually IS Eric Cartman running around in Iraq? Yeah. Think about THAT for a moment, America.”
“One thing about the right? With very few exceptions, they're not funny. We, on the other hand, are. And that's how you fight them. When you see them throwing a hissy fit? Join in. Start wailing like an infant with sand in its diaper. If you have a binky or bear handy, share with them. Everything they do is political theater - so turn it against them!”
lastcallmd on Aug 12, 2009 at 20:12:08
“Well, that's not exactly right.......Only 6 months and you've forgotten the lefts' inchoate hatred of George Bush? Or the left on college campuses? Have you ever read a story on the right shouting down a speaker? But the left does it frequently. And it was Mitch McConnell who beat Dee Huddleston with funny commercials. Although, John Kerry was a very funny guy, albeit unintentionally......”
"(Change) comes through political strong-arming, cajoling, negotiation, strategy, and tactics. The words that matter to us don't have nearly as much impact as the actions inside the beltway."
Actions? As in, getting people to do stuff? Actions are achieved through motivation. Motivation, through inspiration...or fear.
Americans are sick of fear. Which is half of why you're getting your ass handed to you.
The other half? Execution - what Hilbot claims to be so good at. Mrs. "Ready On Day One" wasn't even "ready" for the possibility that she might have to fight for the nomination. You think she's going to be "ready" to stand up to the GOP shitstorm? I don't.
I like her. I respect her. I want her doing the people's work. If she gets the nomination by anything other than sleazy backroom politics, I'll support her. Hell, I probably will anyway. But she's a weak candidate.”
“I agree, but Alec, according to the NYT, you donated more to Hillary. Comment?
This has been such a weird campaign. As turned off as I am by Hillary's campaign, I've grown to respect her abilities more. I really hope she loses today, but I also think she deserves our respect, not the bashing she gets.”
“Ridley's "outrage" has NOTHING to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that he supports Hillary. His absurd column manufactures some lame-ass "soft bigotry" nonsense, then bolts it on to Rich's column. It's blatantly obvious, and it sounds like the panicked scribblings of a justifiably nervous HRC supporter.
P.S. If the only white people you guys meet "start talking about Tiger and OJ by their third appletini," you're meeting the wrong white people. (Talk about "soft bigotry"!)”
ruffmama on Dec 4, 2007 at 20:57:31
“Not to mention that Drudge had a link to Rich's article up all weekend so imagine all of the reads it got. Ridley is in the Hillary camp so I guess he is just doing his part to try and dis-credit the piece. Just like he got all miffed a few weeks ago over Michelle Obama's remarks regarding "black America". According to him, even she isn't able to correctly relate to race in America.
What happened to you Ridley? I used to enjoy your posts and commentary when you were on MSNBC.”
maninla on Dec 4, 2007 at 20:21:21
“"...If the only white people you guys meet "start talking about Tiger and OJ by their third appletini," you're meeting the wrong white people."
I like to say one "needs to get out more often" but just a quick "kudo drop" to you, sir.”
You started talking about "true Islam," (Which teaches that nonbelievers are to be converted - and if that fails, killed - but that's another post.) when in fact what she's talking about is RELIGION in general.
What sets up the "my god is better than your god" conflict? Not faith. Not spirituality. But a system of control designed by men who claim to have a greater understanding of the desires of invisible superheroes who live in outer space.
In other words, "religion."
Mommadona is exactly right - "Organized religion ...is the bane of civilization."”
hoopoe on Sep 21, 2007 at 08:51:43
“i would argue it's the literal interpretation of religious myths and scriptures that is the bane of civilization. organization has nothing to do with it. there is only a stake in asserting one religion's superiority over another if you believe the myths are literal fact (as opposed to metaphor pointing to an unknowable 'Truth'...)
for example, if you believe god gave you the deed to a particular piece of land you have just literalized scripture with deadly real world consequences...
people who misinterpret religious myths and scriptures often fail to realize that they are written in rhetorical styles that do not lend themselves to such literalism. these are not intended to be historically accurate, but to be instructive.
the Quran is full of rhetorical hyperbole that, if taken literally, can be shocking to a western audience and potentially devastating in the understanding of a fundamentalist believer, but it does not necessarily represent the intended meaning of the text...
we need to learn how to understand religion properly, not banish it altogether.”
mommadona on Sep 20, 2007 at 20:12:47
“Well, I was going to tackle that, but hey, when it's short, sweet and to the point - thank you.
It IS about "organized" religion.
And, yes, let's go there - male dominated organized religion.
Hey, I'm happily married. I have nothing against real men. I have EVERYTHING against alpha males playing "who gets to grab the weenie" by signing up to an "organization", be it religion, politics, sports, whatever.
Just go behind the barn, guys, and do your thing together and leave the rest of the normal world OUT of it, thankyew.