“Don't get me wrong... I'm not intending to "attack" his fans. People can be fans of whoever they choose, its a free country. I'm pointing out that he will never really feel compelled to apologize for anything as long as people are still willing to pay him for what he does. Unless the fans care, he won't. If calling it a fact "attacks" his fans, then so be it, but they bear some responsibility for his lack of sensitivity. If that doesn't bother them, then so be it. If someone's outrage at someone's clear moral shortcomings only spurs someone else's devotion to the person in question... then so be it. Though, that's a sad state of affairs.
Lets face it... Chris Brown speaks the language of $$$ like most celebrities... heck like most PEOPLE... when their livlihood is threatened, they balk. Brown is secure in album and ticket sales and therefore can simply flip the finger at common decency. Anyone who cares about "what transpired" will speak with their wallets, either positively or negatively, as that's the only way they have a voice in the matter.
But let's be honest... one can't say "I despise racism" and then give donations to the KKK every year. You can't support CB with ticket sales and also be outraged at what he did.”
“Great article! Unfortunately we seem to live in a society that has scooted further and further from personal responsibility. Chris Brown has never been on my music playlist, not because of his antics, but because he's just not my thing. But when I heard about what he had done, it sickened me. But I find it difficult to determine what sickens me more... that he did it and didn't apologize... or that he feels like "why should he" since he still has a bunch of willing fans paying him to be a ****.
Like Charlie Sheen... why should someone take personal responsibility for anything if they can sell out playhouses around the country regardless of what they say or do?
If Chris Brown were to show up at his next concert to the sound of chirping crickets in the arena... it would send a message. As it is, countless people will send him the message "we don't care what you do" by showing up and giving him their hard earned money. They are as guilty as he is.”
Turquoise66 on Mar 29, 2011 at 16:00:35
“His fanbase only grows stronger when people start attacking his fans. The issue becomes more personal. Same thing happen to Britney. Doesn't matter how crazy they are.”
“As for the "created jobs"... temporary jobs that lasted 3-4 months on a project was NOT what the country was asking their president for... yet that is precisely what the stimulus money and even the "created jobs" numbers they quoted promoted. 10 million to build a bridge. What happens when the bridge is finished? Unemployed again.
What ACTUALLY will stimulate jobs was creating an environment where businesses, large and small, felt secure enough to invest in more personnel. Instead, some states got a few more roadways... some construction workers got a few more paychecks... and when all was said and done... the employment rate was STILL too high and most of the "stimulated" people were back on the government dole. Who was helped? The lawmakers who promised their communities those bridges in hopes of reelection... that's who.
Ultimately nobody on "Main Street" truly benefitted. So either Obama lied about the true nature of the additional stimulus and how it would benefit us... or he assumed it would do better than it did based on faulty economic advice. Either way, we got screwed, but one certainly is less forgivable than the other.
A multitude of Bush opponents voted FOR the war in Iraq based on the SAME evidence he was presented with. Surprisingly many of them are still in office.
Who says war can't be partisan?”
rshrink on Mar 29, 2011 at 21:19:09
“And by the way, there was a bill voted on by the Senate to authorize this action. Rand Paul voted for it.”
rshrink on Mar 29, 2011 at 19:04:09
“I am afraid the numbers of jobs added does not support your claims. There is a hold up on job creation, but that falls on the shoulders of the manipulating banks and big corporations. The banks won't loan until the repubs take over. That makes the repubs look good at the expense of the country. You probably didn't notice the attention that the big banks are getting now for corruption, did you. You probably also failed to notice that the corporations are continuing to send jobs out of the country. Do you really think that helps? The corporations are also getting out of paying taxes by pretending to be Swiss or whatever, in order to get out of paying taxes. They want to take resources from this nation and then not have to pay anything for that. The repubs are all for this kind of behavior, but it will spell the end of this nation as we have known it. And by the way, when real jobs are created for Americans, any wages paid are helping Main Street. Your lack of knowledge of economics prevents you from understanding this real way of growing an economy, as opposed to the fake one that Reagan and Bush put in place to pacify their comrades in greed. We working Americans know we are not better off because of Bush and that things are not getting better because of the repubs.”
“If I wanted to win a popularity contest... I'd run for president on the Democratic ticket, lol. As it stands, I'd rather be proudly independent and just base my opinions on logic and common sense. ;)”
“That's a rhetorical that bears no relevance. Crimes should be punished... regardless. I am certainly not suggesting we DON'T pursue Wall Street crooks... but the article (particularly the title) implies a false premise... and that is that some crimes aren't as worthy of enforcement. This is simply not true... if it is a crime... then enforce it... period.
It's akin to saying... why are the police arresting the guy who stole my car while there is a serial killer on the loose? I say go get the serial killer... but why ignore the car thief?
“This article makes the mistake of pointing out obvious illegal activity that is not being prosecuted by implying that other prosecuted illegal activity is by some manner "less important". The truth is they are both important. It has not gone unnoticed that the headline quite purposefully leaves off "illegal" before "immigrants", implying that somehow feds are waiting for people to get off of boats and throwing them in jail. There is no war on immigration. Immigration is lauded and welcomed. Bring your tired huddled masses still rings true today... but there is a perfectly sane process for doing so, and if it isn't sane enough... then FIX IT.
A headline that lets ILLEGAL immigrants be "immigrants" while calling Wall-Streeters "crooks" is telling to say the least. Let's call them both what they are... lawbreakers. Period.”
anfractuous on Mar 29, 2011 at 13:22:45
“Who is more worthy of vigorous government pursuit: a gardener, who at best steals one job, or a Wall Street "crook" who annihilates thousands? Yours is the same sophistry which Anatole France lampoons in: "How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!"”
roberttsf on Mar 29, 2011 at 12:14:55
“I think that the Justice Department absolutely is interested in prosecuting crimes committed purposefully by Banking institutions in the US. I think that these banks will show up with a team of lawyers and piles of evidence that will show US policy created the framework that authorized or at the least lent tacit approval for their actions. So what case would the justice department have to try? Other than the Robo-Signing which should have been handled better, what instance of criminality are we talking about here.
This article looks at the trial statistics and fallaciously creates a causal relationship. This is, at best, an emotionally drapped shabby excuse for journalism.”
roberttsf on Mar 29, 2011 at 12:05:06
“You are going to be very unpopular on this site. I like you.”
“Wait... so which is it... did he lie us into the war... or assume us into the war? Either he lied or he made incorrect assumptions based on faulty intel. The two are not one and the same. Did Obama lie us into additional stimulus that would save jobs (but didn't) or was his decision based on faulty assumptions? One is forgivable while the other is impeachable.
One is also more likely and provable and the other is a fanatical overreach.”
rshrink on Mar 29, 2011 at 10:00:47
“Bush lied us into the war. He had been giving correct information and he ignored it. He said in his book, he wanted to be a war president so that he could be a "great president." Read his book. Go back and review the newspapers at the time. Some of us were paying attention. Obama gave money to the states to distribute as they saw fit and yes, many jobs were created. Many repub governors took the money and created jobs without letting on that they took the money. That would make Obama look good and they could not be a party to that now could they. This is all provable unless you just want to believe the Fox News Prop a gan da. That is your choice, but it won't help you make better decisions in the future.”