Jump to content


Richard_the_Vampire

Member Since 09 Mar 2010
Offline Last Active Nov 28 2011 08:03 PM
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Which 'institution' has the most power?

17 January 2011 - 05:47 PM

Corporations only become large because they offer a product/service that people want/need. As such, it's largely the masses as a whole that are the most powerful foce to reckon with. If corporations run things why do they sometimes hire/fire radio/tv personalities? Can't they simply force their choices on us?

I'd say the masses are by far the most powerful force there is.

If the masses could operate as one voice, this is true. But they are fragmented into subgroups, and many of these subgroups are marginalized. Who controls the fragmenting and marginalization? Corporations, acting through the media and politicians.

In Topic: Which 'institution' has the most power?

17 January 2011 - 05:31 PM

I don't understand how it's anything but the media.

The media is run by corporations.

Corpoations communicate through media.

Plus, media often slams and exposes corporations, religion, and gov't.

Not really. Only to the extent necessary to perpetuate the myth of an independent press.

In Topic: Which 'institution' has the most power?

17 January 2011 - 05:28 PM

Federal government was a close second for me. The military and the corporations work together to run the country. The federal government has direct control over the military, but corporations also have a hand in what it does. So overall, corporations are directing our country's moves.

In Topic: Is Conservative rhetoric partially responsible for the shooting?

17 January 2011 - 05:25 PM

Here's the fundamental disconnect.

You don't need Lougner to say that what Rush is preaching and serving up is not healthy for the American public and for our rational discourse. You guys are acting like unless he had a signed and notarized letter from one of the leaders of the right wing, telling Loughner to go out and do this, that what they preach and what they say is perfectly acceptable. It's not. It isn't. It shouldn't be. Something like this tragedy bring a spotlight and attention to it but it's wrong to say that if they aren't related, that this #### is alright.

What people on your side of the aisle would you also critique this way?

Who ever said this guy (Matthias) had a side? I certainly don't.

:lmao:

What's so funny? I'm not joking.

In Topic: Is Conservative rhetoric partially responsible for the shooting?

17 January 2011 - 05:04 PM

Here's the fundamental disconnect.

You don't need Lougner to say that what Rush is preaching and serving up is not healthy for the American public and for our rational discourse. You guys are acting like unless he had a signed and notarized letter from one of the leaders of the right wing, telling Loughner to go out and do this, that what they preach and what they say is perfectly acceptable. It's not. It isn't. It shouldn't be. Something like this tragedy bring a spotlight and attention to it but it's wrong to say that if they aren't related, that this #### is alright.

What people on your side of the aisle would you also critique this way?

Who ever said this guy (Matthias) had a side? I certainly don't. I don't read Daily Kos, and I don't listen to Keith Olbermann. Nor do I care to.

Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric, no matter who it comes from.

It's time to stop avoiding the issue by blaming the "other side."