Green Jobs, Renewable energy, safe products and healthcare? Are you kidding me? People are concerned with costs of food and gasoline, the value of their homes, student debt, quality of education, traffic and road quality, your examples are way down the list dude. Over 330 million have NOT watched your silly video that talks about democracy when we are represented in congress, we don't vote for laws.
The FEC should not exist. Regulations haven't stopped mischief, fraud, theft or any behaviors. AIG had over 400 regulators, ended up failing and was nationalized. We have state and U.S. attorneys to prosecute people and corporations, the regulators are a waste of resources. The 1st amendment doesn't differentiate or recognize a group of people. The constitution adamantly differentiates the state and the people. There are governed and the government, nothing more.
@6024691380 I strongly disagree. America does not need NO regulation but rather wise regulation. Many corporations have objected to the rule of the public over their operations. They OPPOSE government BY, FOR and OF the people and this culminated in Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS. Corporations through lobbyists and willing dupes and fellow travelers in bureaucracies and poiitiicans have worked to undermine the effectiveness of regulators and it is they who deserve our disgust.
The [1st] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
@1:13 ~1:15 No we are not Democracy we are a Republic. Republic ~ Italy translated as "public matter". Democracy ~ Greek: translated as "rule of the people" Rootwords What sounds better ? "A Republic—If You Can Keep It" ~ Benjamin Franklin Ron Paul 2012!
Hey Mstaff657, you're a moron. "The" woman you refer to is on the money w/ these corporate pillagers and it's spelled "Prozac" you utter bonehead. You sound-yet again- more like another bloodsucker who's tapped into the vein of the public trust.
so, spending money on election is not democracy???? and how does giving them a voice diminish others?
imagine who would want to invest in a company that don't care about profit...... wait, yall can invest in me, i won't guarantee you a return on your investment and i will show love and compassion when using the money.
I really like these videos but there's 1 thing I really hate about them. The way you explain things you're telling people that there are other people or ''corporations'' making our lives bad. But thats not true, we did this and it's our own fault. We got ourselves into this shit. Not some evil genius guy. Nope...its all us. And we're the ones that need to fix it.
@synapse131 please see my other comment for more info... true communism has never been realized, what most people know as communism is only the initial phase of what communism was designed to accomplish. After 'the state' took everything it was supposed to give it back to the people equally... that's never happened. My other comment explains how to sidestep the stage where 'the state' has any involvement at all, and instead allows for the direct democratic control of everything by us.
Fixing the laws is a good idea, but replacing psychopathic corps with often altruistic non-profit cooperatives is a much better idea. Local, small, but nationally and internationally associated non-profit cooperatives can provide all the services and products that corps and gov funded social services do today... only while encouraging direct democratic participation and true transparancy. 2012 is The Year of The Cooperative, get on the bus.
The production is meant to appeal to a people of limited inteligence. Another note is we are a Democratic Republic not a Democracy! But the mesage of corporate funding of elections is spot on!
It was REAGAN who ended the power of the people to individually respond to the power of large corporations to buy elections for their puppets when he ENDED the FCC principle of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. That ended the responsibility of broadcast media to provide time for opposing viewpoints and THAT enabled Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest to tell outrageous lies and have no one oppposing them or exposing their lies. Is that what the Founders intended with the First Amendment?
@exenrontexas Just because it was called FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not mean it accomplished that. If you can get past hysterics, The First Amendment is about freedom of speech. Not guided, protected, loving, caring, rational, human speech, just free.
@ahmedalsadik The Fairness Doctrine does not in any way dictate what the content of speech is. It ONLY allows the public access to the publically owned airwaves which commercial editorial operations use for their own purposes. The access to the airwaves by private enterprise is LICENSED by the Federal government and those private enterprises should in no way be permitted to limit responsible opposition to their editorial poiicies. Your view is inappropriate and misplaced.
@exenrontexas My general point stands unaddressed: government cannot enact fairness of speech simply because that is the name of its policy. The details of this we can discuss, you seem however to be not just impolite ("inappropriate"?) but also to have too much time on your hands, seeing how you have harassed this thread to bits, with personal qualifications, cheap rhetoric (REAGAN...) and panicked outrage.You Sir are a poor excuse for a debater on this forum. Have a good night.
@ahmedalsadik Your general point is not worthy of being addressed since the "government" in America, by definition, is the PEOPLE and ONLY the PEOPLE can set those policies. Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for details. The PEOPLE get exactly the policies and government that they deserve. Now my basic point is that corporations have lobbied, bought off and pressured to become PEOPLE for a long time and it is just not so. They are the enemy of people.
@exenrontexas The very first Tea Party in Boston was a protest by the people of having to pay the corporate taxes levied by the British government on the corporation. Ever thus. When America was founded ONLY corporations paid taxes. Again they have worked very hard to turn that around to put the burden on the people and then blame the "government" for that inequity. I worked for the sixth largest US corporation who paid NO tax at all in the last 4 out of 5 years.
@exenrontexas The large corporation bought the 2000 election for BUSH and BUSH paid them back by NOT stopping them from raping California in the energy black outs AND by starting the Afghan WAR to aid their efforts to build the transAfghan energy pipeline. ENRON, UNOCAL and BUSH met with the Taliban in '97 to cut that deal but failed. The ENRON BOD immediately after began discussing REGIME CHANGE in Afghanistan. ENRON was the largest corporate fraud in history. And YOU paid for it.
Even the developmentally disabled people (i.e., fully retarded) who I worked with and lived in group homes had to pay significant rent. Although they were supported by an organization that helped them, they were still required to pay most of their work or benefit amounts to rent. Just try to find free housing! I dare you! ...and good luck; you won't find it.
You'll sit in your little bubble railing at how everyone wants to take from you and how unfair it is and assume that all the wrong headed assumptions you are making are correct because it makes you feel better to hate someone you think is "bad" or "evil" or however it is you justify your insane ideas to yourself. Go and actually find out if there is "free" housing (god I wish!)
So you're less worried by the corporate CEOs who have (very illegally) off shored billions of dollars (incl TARP funds) for their own golden parachutes than the very small number of people who take advantage of what little welfare there is in the US and which costs the country little? I would say that you should go and actually find out how much that "government housing" costs for those who get that assistance but you won't.
No, I don't think everyone should get free money. That's absurd! Again, that's just your rationalization to be able to hate those that you think are somehow dragging you down and that's just not the case. Welfare is a tiny amount of the overall government budget and I have never had any problems paying taxes, some of which went to people who were in need. If there are deadbeats and cheats, they should not get the services. But there are far fewer of those deadbeats than you think.
@synapse131 This. A thousand times this. NO ONE likes freeloaders off the system, be they liberals, conservatives, libertarians, centrists, or what have you. What we want is a system that helps people help themselves when they need it. Shit happens to all of us, regardless of how hard we work and pull up ourselves by our bootstraps. A lot of poor people ARE working hard and are still struggling to get by.
"I am a selfish bastard." That you are. Way to celebrate your more virtuous traits! What has happened to our society that people now celebrate being selfish as a good thing?! I really hope you don't have any aspirations for getting into heaven or paradise (or whatever afterlife in which most hypocritical Christians profess to believe) cause you're gonna have a veeeeeery long wait. (Note: I'm talking specifically about hypocritical Christians and not all Christians.)
Telling yourself that "libs" want to create a socialist paradise doesn't make it true; it's just what you tell yourself so that you can take a contrary point of view and hate someone that you think has beliefs that are different from your own. Returning to what worked for most of the last century for the US is not the same as a wholesale turn to communism; that would be nuts and only a crazy person (such as yourself) would think such a thing. Keep lying to yourself!
A return to the effective business and economic regulation that we had for most of the last century (Glass-Steagall etc.) and the high tax rates on the super wealthy would not mean that the US would turn into a socialist utopia unless you think that the US has already been a socialist utopia for most of the past century. This crazy idea you have that those "damn libs" want to make the US into a communist paradise is absurd.
FYI, those on SSDI paid into that system just like any other insurance program (just without the outrageous profit motive.) They are NOT taking YOUR tax money. Welfare and Social Security Disability are separate things. Anyone who argues that we should get rid of Social Security Disability should also then argue that we should get rid of car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
@567hook Without unions, you would be working 80 hour weeks and sending your children off to work at the factory and not school. You would have no medical benefits. no time off for illness, no paid vacation, etc. While there are corrupt unions (like any other organization) that doesn't mean that they are all bad.
@synapse131 I operate our family business - in 1977 my father led the the battle against the union the employees voted the parasites out. In 1989 I the work weed to 4 ten hour days weekend operators have 30hrs. The company always paid scale, the difference - all the benefits go directly to the employees, instead of Lazy trouble makers & corrupt politicians.
For businesses that are run fairly, by good people who don't take advantage of their employees. then unions aren't necessary. Unfortunately, there are few of those (especially since the US has gotten rid of the limits on monopolies; which has decreased fair business competition) but I do applaud a well run family business that cares about it's employees; it's the backbone of America's (i.e, the 99% of us who aren't wealthy) prosperity. I'm not anti-business at all. Just for fairness.
@mstaff657 Another heartless conservative who thinks that anything they have to give back to society is only going to pay for deadbeats and druggies. Two can play the same game.
@mstaff657 Dude. I'm a guy. Get off it. My own vid?! What the hell are you talking about? Keep talking. You just keep showing how uneducated you are and are making yourself into a greater and greater fool. Ask any tax preparer if it's possible to be taxed at an effective rate of 75% and find out how wrong you are.
Of course I'm aurguing with someone who thought is was possible to pay 75% in taxes and then get that entire amount back as a tax return so I guess I should have some idea that you're not someone who is smart enough with which to have a decent argument.
You seem to think it either "your way" or total communist style government. There seems to be no in between. The idea that a democracy could decide to nationalize or at least put restrictions on certain industries is not completely antithetical to capitalism and is in keeping with the highest of democratic ideals. Only in your mind does it seem to be one way or the other (laizze faire capitalism or total communism.) Why do you think we have public police and fire fighters?
Of course we could go back to private fire control and private police forces too (we all know how well that worked out considering that fire "gangs" used to strip the burning house of their belongings as payment.) Two can play the game of accusing the other of the most extreme ideas as a rhetorical point but it doesn't actually further the argument either way. No modern liberal would advocate moving to a totalitarian government.
Another rhetorical argument. You assume that liberals want totalitarian, communist style government which is not at all the case. We just want to keep the capitalists from devolving capitalism to the point of going back to predatory practices of the Robber Baron Age and keep it at least fair enough that it doesn't kill the (quite successful so far) marriage of democracy and capitalism.
@567hook No I wasn't. I voted for Obama as the lesser of the evils and I knew he was a corporate stooge who was the other side of the Bush coin. Obama's not liberal at all.
"Now Im made to pay for others." Just like the rest of us. We all have to pay back to society and that includes helping those who cannot help themselves. Not because it helps them, but because it helps the rest of us. When the poor live on the streets, it degrades the quality of life for the rest of us. When the poor cannot get food and end up dying at the hospital, we pay. We're going to pay either way, it's just would you rather pay a small amount to help up front or a larger
amount later on to clean up the mess that will inevitably occur when those folks need more help than they initially needed. You are not looking at the big picture. When poor folks have no other alternative to survive than to turn to crime, it end up costing the rest of us so much more. Being proactive costs much less than being reactive. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to pull their own weight but that's just not possible.
When I was making $8 per hour, I paid about 15-20% to taxes which amounted to about 2K per year but I only got $3-500 back on my tax returns. This is typical of everyone I have ever known and these tax rates are easy to look up. Your bizarre idea that 50% pay no taxes is EASILY refutable.
Again, someone has to work to pay taxes so it's not possible to get a tax return without having paid taxes (by working) in the first place. It's called a "return" for a reason, dumbshit! Another clueless idiot who thinks he knows something but demonstrates his ignorance over and over again.
You demonstrate your ignorance when you state that someone making 12K per year could pay out over 9K in taxes and receive that entire amount back. It's not possible; no one gets taxed at an effective rate of 75%, not even the wealthy. More likely she paid about 15-20% in taxes and got about 3-5% back. It's a FACT that here in Oakland, General Assistance has to be paid back (in the most liberal state in the union BTW.)
And the CEOs and executives that took TARP monies and created their own "golden parachutes" aren't leaches? You are looking in the wrong direction. The amounts of money taken up by social services (esp. in the US which has the worst social services of any industrialized nation) is a pittance compared to the defense budget and the overall budget. It's the executives that have been removing billions of dollars from the US; not the poor.
Where did you get the figure that 50% don't pay taxes? That's absurd! The government couldn't be funded if that were the case since the vast majority of the funds collected by taxation are from the non-wealthy.
Funny. When I was working for $8 an hour, I still paid 15-20% taxes and only got a small refund. The reason that taxes are higher on the wealthy is that it's understood that the wealthy make a lot of their money from sources not related to income taxes (non-taxed investments) and they have many many ways of hiding monies off shore and beating the tax system that normal folks do not have. The wealthy don't always invest in ways that benefit the rest of us.
I agree that corporations are not people and am against this citizens united vs. FEC ruling, but some of the solutions proposed in this video would backfire. A constitutional amendment to declare that corporations (any type of business for that matter) have no right to free speech, free press, free assembly, and petition the government. This would mean that the government would have a right to interfere with the daily practices of a business and would violate the free market.
@DameDiabolique I am a Freelance Graphic Designer, I own a business, I should have a right to protest ANY action from the government that would interfere with my daily business operations. This is Communism. Not free market.
A better solution would be a more informed voting public. If you have an issue with the way a corporation can spend unlimited money on ads then DON'T WATCH CORPORATE MEDIA!!! Knock on doors and talk to your fellow citizens. That's how you can change the country.
@DameDiabolique Remember Corporations CAN'T VOTE! Only people can vote. Also, only vote for politicians who have a clear record of voting in the best interests of the people. Don't vote for people who take money from banks and corporations.
@DameDiabolique The essence of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to win an election (above very small local levels) without corporate financing.
How will we create a Constitutional amendment preventing corporate control of elections if it has to be approved by two thirds of our corporate controlled Congress?
We watched this in my sociology class today. The other was how we watched stuff work. I like the visuals, but the lady's peaking annoys me a little (not to be mean or anything :/ ).
@whatsuponbro what the hell are you talking about? As an Ohioan, the issue we faced with SB 5 and "No on Issue 2" was that ALL state employees would lose collective bargaining rights. ALL. It wasn't about getting them the right to opt out of the union; it was about cutting the union benefits of unionized government employees so the governor and others could decide to cut salaries and benefits for teachers, cops, and others. Get your damn facts straight.
The SuperPACS spending have improved democracy. (Not that "democracy" is the end value here. Democracy is a tool, not an end.) The SuperPACS have provided GOP voters with more information and thorough examination of the candidates than any mainstream press outlet has. Super PACs keeping Gingrich in the race helps give those people the opportunity to vote for their candidate. How would "democracy" be improved by the primary season ending the moment the press declares one candidate "inevitable"?
@itsmarmalade Union interests are workers right? Bullcrap! Union interests today are political power! How they can take more tax payer money for themselves to give to politicians who will give them more!
LOL workers rights. Just like that time when Unions led the charge against S.B 5 in Ohio. The very ruling that would allow workers to opt out of forced union dues. They support worker rights, unless those rights directly oppose unions.
@necrom666 You don't understand. Unions fight for the rights of those who make less money, so by default they are correct and objective people like yourself are nothing more than selfish bigots who want to enslave the average american to corporations.
@JackofOneTrade567 I am in the SIEU and they spend my union deus on many politicians I don't like and i have absolutely no say in the matter.
Unions speak out against and spend money on things that have nothing to do with workers rights. SIEU leaders spoke out agianst the IRAQ war. Weather you were against the war or for it matters not. That particular stance has nothing to do with their members. They spent money promoting Obama care. Obama care doesn't improve mine or any members life.
"The free market's not the problem!", "There isn't anything wrong with profit!".
Oh no? So there's nothing wrong with a system wherein the governing body is bought and sold by a small, unelected elite making decisions in their own interest?
I just don't understand how one can see our modern society and not conclude categorically that profit at the expense of others is wrong, and that the "free market" IS a huge problem.
@TheDavoo Except that the choice of candidates is determined before anyone ever goes to the polls when the politicians go around collecting funds for their campaign coffers. We have no say in this. We ALWAYS end up voting the lesser of the evils (such as Obama!)
EEEK!!!!! This is the scariest video i have ever seen! No matter how cute the drawings it is not OK for the government to abridge free speech! Thank god the judges read the first Amendment! This lady really needs to do the same!
@nathanlabish Free speech by indivduals. Pouring massive amounts of money into your favorites politicians campaign so he'll vote your way when your corp wants to get out of pollution controls or off shore their labor is not the same thing as an individual being allowed to speak their mind (as a voter.) Corporations do not vote and yet they get to completely influence our supposedly democratic process; often for their own benefit.
The other hilarious part is that Citizens allowed UNIONS to make unlimited donations to PACs. And unions spent $400 million on campaign advertising in 2010 vs. $300 million by corporations. Corporations represent their shareholders and employees just as unions represent their members. I don't see the difference.
@retownsend Corporations stand to profit massively much of the time. Unions are non-profit entities (at least most of the time.) Unions tend to represent large numbers of people but corporations tend to represent a small number of very wealthy people who think it's OK to get their way despite what the rest of us think.
This video is so ridiculous... There isn't anything wrong with profit. Corporations aren't our friends - we aren't asking them to babysit our kids. I don't need the man who runs my gas station to love selling gas nor do I need the man who grows the apples I eat to love being a farmer. People do things for money - they always have, they always will.
Now, I'm going to put on my comfy corporate-made pajamas, return to my corporate-made computer and watch videos on the corporate-made YouTube.
America was SUPPOSED to be a republic and not a democracy. That's what our constitution said at least. In a democracy, majority rules. The majority of people that voted a certain thing in have taken away the rights of the few that wanted it out. In a republic however, everyone gets to live as they please with a few minor laws in place so as not to infringe on your unalienable rights... such as if you are a man who is in love with another man and wish to get married.
That is SUPPOSED to be your business and no one else's, as well as your right. The idea that you should be allowed to place anything in your body that you so please, such a smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, raw milk, and yes... hard drugs... is your constitutional right. The FEW laws in place though, would be stuff like laws that are against the use of force on another person, such as murder and rape.
@bluesyrastapunkraver Very true. The Jefferson Monument is a monument to religious freedom as Jefferson championed the right to follow whatever religion one wanted. He even had his own version of the bible in which he took out most of the stuff that he thought was extraneous.
@yappertrap It's a republic sp[ecifically to protect the rights of the minorities who could be out voted by the majority. A republic based on democratic ideals.
While Wiki homepage is complianing "In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive." against SOPA and PIPA, they should also support Story of Stuff Project to overturn Citizens United v. FEC with their powerful internet influence.
lol... sad to post your racism all over the internet "
Well, it's been known throughout history that Italians do tend to panic when faced with an overwhelming danger to their lives. Just like what this Italian Captain did. Italian cowardice at its best." GoldenShellback1 12 minutes ago
@calvingyim You're right, we are a republic-democracy.
However, I don't agree with her at all. Many people believe that "person" and "people" are of the same terms (in which they are in common English). However, in legal-language, the terms carry different meanings. Has anyone ever wondered why an individual is required to register a sole-proprietorship with the State - does not a corporation have to do the same?
Believe it or not, our "persons" are corporations as well. Legal-fictions.
Search "Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique" for an in depth analyses. Most of what she has to say is misdirection to manipulate how you feel about this without ever actually talking about what happened in the case. This is full of misdirection, lies, and anti-capitalist propaganda.
@calvingyim Search "Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique" for an in depth analyses. Most of what she has to say is misdirection to manipulate how you feel about this without ever actually talking about what happened in the case. This is full of misdirection, lies, and anti-capitalist propaganda.
storyofstuffproject, here is the serbian translation of the video: gusari.org/uploads/The%20Story%20of%20Citizens%20United%20v.%20FEC%20%282011%29.txt
yeah, in Canada (where I live anyway) most people are to afraid of change and trying to get a better government so we always ended up with that moron Mc Guinty! He's been driving Canada to the ground but the citizens aren't doing anything!
I'll be referencing this video on Detroit's 1310 AM Radio tomorrow with Tony Trupiano. I'd like to thank you immensely for creating this wonderful resource. OCCUPY THE COURTS is January 20 NATIONWIDE - share this video as we come up to this call to action. Come to the Federal Courthouse near you and join the protest!
I think the biggest reason for why it's bad for corporations to buy politicians is because it begs the question of whether or not that politician can be trusted, and with a congress that's almost completely bought out, a constitutional amendment against this kind of corruption is virtually impossible to pass.
A true grassroots campaign is good way to start in combating this injustice but the people are going to have to operate on a scale equal to women's suffrage and civil rights combined.
The problem IS government, a businessman can't point a gun at your head and tell you to buy products... but he can ask the government to do it for him, and they'll happily oblige.
Corporations are organizations just like those non-profit organizations, if non-profit organizations have right to influence public policies, why not corporations? Corporations are just organizations of people with same goal: making money, which is not that bad, people all wants to make money.
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. I'll believe corporations are people when Dick Cheney waterboards one. I'll believe corporations are people when Mississippi lynches one.
Of course every liberal wants corporations stripped of their right to support candidates (except for the liberal media of course).
Oh, and people are being stripped of their democratic rights if the most advertised candidate is supported by corporations [who don't endorse the Democratic Party]? So people have no choice but to choose the most widely advertised candidate?
@cyberpolice9000 JesusFuckingChrist, there IS no such thing as a 'liberal' media. Who owns the media...rich, rightwing conservatives that control every aspect of what gets put out there. Keep your propaganda to yourself, thankyou verymuch.
Oh come on, FOX may be conservative media, but networks like MSNBC are definitely more liberal. You also say that rich conservatives control every aspect of what gets put on news stations and in newspapers and such? It's a business, so the people control what's put on. If people don't like what a certain company (i.e. Fox) puts on the air, they can just not watch it, they'll lose money and viewers if they don't show what people will willingly watch. It's not slavery lol.
@cyberpolice9000 Simply put, Fux "News" is not news at all. They won several court cases where Ailes/Murdoch sued for the right to edit, distort, and outright lie, while calling themselves a "news" channel. They are simply the propaganda wing of the republican party. Noone said anything about slavery...but they know that there is a huge market for hate in the U.S. and have capitalized on it big time. MSNBC may allow some liberal shows on there, but some have been removed
@cyberpolice9000 at the request of conservative donors when they got too close to the truth, i.e. Olbermann and Cenk Uygur. Fox, on the other hand spares no expense screwing the truth, and would never consider removing someone that spread too much propaganda. LOL.
Technically they can. But if things really worked as you suggest, no advertising would have any effect, ever.
The fact that the whole system even works is a proof that it's not a fair game.
Someone being less clever than you doesn't mean he deserves to be your slave. Abusing mental advantage doesn't seem to bother anyone, yet using physical advantage against others is considered wrong. Where's the difference? Nosebleed?
We need more regulation, more taxes and more spending... and more of the Koch Brothers, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley and Sean Hannity! It's just fine if corporations out spend us! As long as we don't let liberals laugh at us anymore.
@bigjohnson9687 Occupy should focus on the problem the government creates, instead of attacking the market and people who are simply making money because they give people what they want. It's government that's the problem, not the free market.
"instead of attacking the market and people who are simply making money because they give people what they want." AustrianEconomistsRu
We sure didn't want the economic meltdown they gave us.
$60 trillion in swaps - 51% default rate in the private UNregulated mortgage market - a FLOOD of foreign capital hit America in 2000(Republicans on the FCIC committee blamed the meltdown ONLY on that) - we Could HAVE used that capital to PROMOTE America and Wall Street, we burned it!
@HopeForPeaceNow They didn't give us a meltdown. They gave us what we wanted - loans. Govt aided them in hiding the fact that those loans were worthless. The problem isn't people being for-profit. Everyone is. The problem comes when a powerful govt intervenes in the economy. Banks would not have been able to crash the economy without the intervention of a central governing body.
Avoiding the crash would have been easy - Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve).
"Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve). " JackofOneTrade567
1. False flag I see libertarians - incl Paul - wave constantly. The REAL problem with the Fed, although they won't admit it - is it puts billions in profits back in the treasury. No? Go look it up. It's in competition with greed, profits are nationalized. Nearly $80 billion in 2011. Corps want ALL the profit to go into the private sector and the pockets of the Elite.
"Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve). "JackofOneTrade567
2. IN late '90s - early 2000s a flood of foreign capital invaded the market/s. Enough that the Republicans in the FCIC committee blamed the entire meltdown on it.
A flood of supply (capital) will drive down interests rates on it's own. In fact - by the simple rule of supply and demand, interests rates, if left alone to set themselves, may very well have been even lower.
Fuck political advertising. I wish people would just do the reseach themselves and use their brains for once.
PaulineLovesPhysics 2 days ago
Green Jobs, Renewable energy, safe products and healthcare? Are you kidding me? People are concerned with costs of food and gasoline, the value of their homes, student debt, quality of education, traffic and road quality, your examples are way down the list dude. Over 330 million have NOT watched your silly video that talks about democracy when we are represented in congress, we don't vote for laws.
6024691380 5 days ago
constitutional amendment defining a corporation! never gonna happen.
6024691380 5 days ago
The FEC should not exist. Regulations haven't stopped mischief, fraud, theft or any behaviors. AIG had over 400 regulators, ended up failing and was nationalized. We have state and U.S. attorneys to prosecute people and corporations, the regulators are a waste of resources. The 1st amendment doesn't differentiate or recognize a group of people. The constitution adamantly differentiates the state and the people. There are governed and the government, nothing more.
6024691380 5 days ago
@6024691380 I strongly disagree. America does not need NO regulation but rather wise regulation. Many corporations have objected to the rule of the public over their operations. They OPPOSE government BY, FOR and OF the people and this culminated in Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS. Corporations through lobbyists and willing dupes and fellow travelers in bureaucracies and poiitiicans have worked to undermine the effectiveness of regulators and it is they who deserve our disgust.
exenrontexas 3 days ago
The [1st] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
KenFaber 1 week ago
This video is so ridiculously good. Nice work storyofstuff
NathanHowardPortland 1 week ago
Of FUCK, Grammatical errors I needed an A befor Democracy. Add a period after Benjamin Franklin.
465160 1 week ago
@1:13 ~1:15 No we are not Democracy we are a Republic. Republic ~ Italy translated as "public matter". Democracy ~ Greek: translated as "rule of the people" Rootwords What sounds better ? "A Republic—If You Can Keep It" ~ Benjamin Franklin Ron Paul 2012!
465160 1 week ago
Hey Mstaff657, you're a moron. "The" woman you refer to is on the money w/ these corporate pillagers and it's spelled "Prozac" you utter bonehead. You sound-yet again- more like another bloodsucker who's tapped into the vein of the public trust.
Thejbirdy 1 week ago
"We have the best politicians money can buy"
-Mark Twain
njrobinson95 1 week ago
so, spending money on election is not democracy???? and how does giving them a voice diminish others?
imagine who would want to invest in a company that don't care about profit...... wait, yall can invest in me, i won't guarantee you a return on your investment and i will show love and compassion when using the money.
deathlogic1 2 weeks ago
@deathlogic1 Giving corporations a voice on DEMOCRACY diminishes other individuals yes
serenity44altosax 1 week ago 2
The woman is incorrect. I would bet money - she has been given prozak.
mstaff657 2 weeks ago
I really like these videos but there's 1 thing I really hate about them. The way you explain things you're telling people that there are other people or ''corporations'' making our lives bad. But thats not true, we did this and it's our own fault. We got ourselves into this shit. Not some evil genius guy. Nope...its all us. And we're the ones that need to fix it.
TheInvisibleTribe 2 weeks ago
@synapse131 please see my other comment for more info... true communism has never been realized, what most people know as communism is only the initial phase of what communism was designed to accomplish. After 'the state' took everything it was supposed to give it back to the people equally... that's never happened. My other comment explains how to sidestep the stage where 'the state' has any involvement at all, and instead allows for the direct democratic control of everything by us.
rckoegel 2 weeks ago
Fixing the laws is a good idea, but replacing psychopathic corps with often altruistic non-profit cooperatives is a much better idea. Local, small, but nationally and internationally associated non-profit cooperatives can provide all the services and products that corps and gov funded social services do today... only while encouraging direct democratic participation and true transparancy. 2012 is The Year of The Cooperative, get on the bus.
rckoegel 2 weeks ago
The production is meant to appeal to a people of limited inteligence. Another note is we are a Democratic Republic not a Democracy! But the mesage of corporate funding of elections is spot on!
kramnuko 2 weeks ago
It was REAGAN who ended the power of the people to individually respond to the power of large corporations to buy elections for their puppets when he ENDED the FCC principle of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. That ended the responsibility of broadcast media to provide time for opposing viewpoints and THAT enabled Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest to tell outrageous lies and have no one oppposing them or exposing their lies. Is that what the Founders intended with the First Amendment?
exenrontexas 2 weeks ago 2
@exenrontexas Just because it was called FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not mean it accomplished that. If you can get past hysterics, The First Amendment is about freedom of speech. Not guided, protected, loving, caring, rational, human speech, just free.
ahmedalsadik 3 days ago
@ahmedalsadik The Fairness Doctrine does not in any way dictate what the content of speech is. It ONLY allows the public access to the publically owned airwaves which commercial editorial operations use for their own purposes. The access to the airwaves by private enterprise is LICENSED by the Federal government and those private enterprises should in no way be permitted to limit responsible opposition to their editorial poiicies. Your view is inappropriate and misplaced.
exenrontexas 3 days ago
@exenrontexas My general point stands unaddressed: government cannot enact fairness of speech simply because that is the name of its policy. The details of this we can discuss, you seem however to be not just impolite ("inappropriate"?) but also to have too much time on your hands, seeing how you have harassed this thread to bits, with personal qualifications, cheap rhetoric (REAGAN...) and panicked outrage.You Sir are a poor excuse for a debater on this forum. Have a good night.
ahmedalsadik 3 days ago
@ahmedalsadik Your general point is not worthy of being addressed since the "government" in America, by definition, is the PEOPLE and ONLY the PEOPLE can set those policies. Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for details. The PEOPLE get exactly the policies and government that they deserve. Now my basic point is that corporations have lobbied, bought off and pressured to become PEOPLE for a long time and it is just not so. They are the enemy of people.
exenrontexas 3 days ago
@exenrontexas The very first Tea Party in Boston was a protest by the people of having to pay the corporate taxes levied by the British government on the corporation. Ever thus. When America was founded ONLY corporations paid taxes. Again they have worked very hard to turn that around to put the burden on the people and then blame the "government" for that inequity. I worked for the sixth largest US corporation who paid NO tax at all in the last 4 out of 5 years.
exenrontexas 3 days ago
@exenrontexas The large corporation bought the 2000 election for BUSH and BUSH paid them back by NOT stopping them from raping California in the energy black outs AND by starting the Afghan WAR to aid their efforts to build the transAfghan energy pipeline. ENRON, UNOCAL and BUSH met with the Taliban in '97 to cut that deal but failed. The ENRON BOD immediately after began discussing REGIME CHANGE in Afghanistan. ENRON was the largest corporate fraud in history. And YOU paid for it.
exenrontexas 3 days ago
@exenrontexas Too bad. See you on the battlefield.
ahmedalsadik 3 days ago
@ahmedalsadik I have already been there and I fought for my freedom and I will NOT allow you or anyone else take it from me.
exenrontexas 2 days ago
@exenrontexas Yes.
ahmedalsadik 2 days ago
Even the developmentally disabled people (i.e., fully retarded) who I worked with and lived in group homes had to pay significant rent. Although they were supported by an organization that helped them, they were still required to pay most of their work or benefit amounts to rent. Just try to find free housing! I dare you! ...and good luck; you won't find it.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
You'll sit in your little bubble railing at how everyone wants to take from you and how unfair it is and assume that all the wrong headed assumptions you are making are correct because it makes you feel better to hate someone you think is "bad" or "evil" or however it is you justify your insane ideas to yourself. Go and actually find out if there is "free" housing (god I wish!)
synapse131 2 weeks ago
So you're less worried by the corporate CEOs who have (very illegally) off shored billions of dollars (incl TARP funds) for their own golden parachutes than the very small number of people who take advantage of what little welfare there is in the US and which costs the country little? I would say that you should go and actually find out how much that "government housing" costs for those who get that assistance but you won't.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
No, I don't think everyone should get free money. That's absurd! Again, that's just your rationalization to be able to hate those that you think are somehow dragging you down and that's just not the case. Welfare is a tiny amount of the overall government budget and I have never had any problems paying taxes, some of which went to people who were in need. If there are deadbeats and cheats, they should not get the services. But there are far fewer of those deadbeats than you think.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@synapse131 This. A thousand times this. NO ONE likes freeloaders off the system, be they liberals, conservatives, libertarians, centrists, or what have you. What we want is a system that helps people help themselves when they need it. Shit happens to all of us, regardless of how hard we work and pull up ourselves by our bootstraps. A lot of poor people ARE working hard and are still struggling to get by.
JessePrower 1 week ago
"I am a selfish bastard." That you are. Way to celebrate your more virtuous traits! What has happened to our society that people now celebrate being selfish as a good thing?! I really hope you don't have any aspirations for getting into heaven or paradise (or whatever afterlife in which most hypocritical Christians profess to believe) cause you're gonna have a veeeeeery long wait. (Note: I'm talking specifically about hypocritical Christians and not all Christians.)
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Telling yourself that "libs" want to create a socialist paradise doesn't make it true; it's just what you tell yourself so that you can take a contrary point of view and hate someone that you think has beliefs that are different from your own. Returning to what worked for most of the last century for the US is not the same as a wholesale turn to communism; that would be nuts and only a crazy person (such as yourself) would think such a thing. Keep lying to yourself!
synapse131 2 weeks ago
A return to the effective business and economic regulation that we had for most of the last century (Glass-Steagall etc.) and the high tax rates on the super wealthy would not mean that the US would turn into a socialist utopia unless you think that the US has already been a socialist utopia for most of the past century. This crazy idea you have that those "damn libs" want to make the US into a communist paradise is absurd.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
FYI, those on SSDI paid into that system just like any other insurance program (just without the outrageous profit motive.) They are NOT taking YOUR tax money. Welfare and Social Security Disability are separate things. Anyone who argues that we should get rid of Social Security Disability should also then argue that we should get rid of car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
One cannot be considered disabled just because one's parents were disabled. Your statement is rhetorical and unsupported.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@567hook Without unions, you would be working 80 hour weeks and sending your children off to work at the factory and not school. You would have no medical benefits. no time off for illness, no paid vacation, etc. While there are corrupt unions (like any other organization) that doesn't mean that they are all bad.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@synapse131 I operate our family business - in 1977 my father led the the battle against the union the employees voted the parasites out. In 1989 I the work weed to 4 ten hour days weekend operators have 30hrs. The company always paid scale, the difference - all the benefits go directly to the employees, instead of Lazy trouble makers & corrupt politicians.
mstaff657 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For businesses that are run fairly, by good people who don't take advantage of their employees. then unions aren't necessary. Unfortunately, there are few of those (especially since the US has gotten rid of the limits on monopolies; which has decreased fair business competition) but I do applaud a well run family business that cares about it's employees; it's the backbone of America's (i.e, the 99% of us who aren't wealthy) prosperity. I'm not anti-business at all. Just for fairness.
synapse131 1 week ago
@mstaff657 Another heartless conservative who thinks that anything they have to give back to society is only going to pay for deadbeats and druggies. Two can play the same game.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@synapse131 You Are Wrong - MS. MANHATE ya pathetic thing your reduced to commenting on your own vid.
mstaff657 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mstaff657 Dude. I'm a guy. Get off it. My own vid?! What the hell are you talking about? Keep talking. You just keep showing how uneducated you are and are making yourself into a greater and greater fool. Ask any tax preparer if it's possible to be taxed at an effective rate of 75% and find out how wrong you are.
synapse131 1 week ago
Of course I'm aurguing with someone who thought is was possible to pay 75% in taxes and then get that entire amount back as a tax return so I guess I should have some idea that you're not someone who is smart enough with which to have a decent argument.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
You seem to think it either "your way" or total communist style government. There seems to be no in between. The idea that a democracy could decide to nationalize or at least put restrictions on certain industries is not completely antithetical to capitalism and is in keeping with the highest of democratic ideals. Only in your mind does it seem to be one way or the other (laizze faire capitalism or total communism.) Why do you think we have public police and fire fighters?
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Of course we could go back to private fire control and private police forces too (we all know how well that worked out considering that fire "gangs" used to strip the burning house of their belongings as payment.) Two can play the game of accusing the other of the most extreme ideas as a rhetorical point but it doesn't actually further the argument either way. No modern liberal would advocate moving to a totalitarian government.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Another rhetorical argument. You assume that liberals want totalitarian, communist style government which is not at all the case. We just want to keep the capitalists from devolving capitalism to the point of going back to predatory practices of the Robber Baron Age and keep it at least fair enough that it doesn't kill the (quite successful so far) marriage of democracy and capitalism.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@567hook No I wasn't. I voted for Obama as the lesser of the evils and I knew he was a corporate stooge who was the other side of the Bush coin. Obama's not liberal at all.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
"Now Im made to pay for others." Just like the rest of us. We all have to pay back to society and that includes helping those who cannot help themselves. Not because it helps them, but because it helps the rest of us. When the poor live on the streets, it degrades the quality of life for the rest of us. When the poor cannot get food and end up dying at the hospital, we pay. We're going to pay either way, it's just would you rather pay a small amount to help up front or a larger
synapse131 2 weeks ago
amount later on to clean up the mess that will inevitably occur when those folks need more help than they initially needed. You are not looking at the big picture. When poor folks have no other alternative to survive than to turn to crime, it end up costing the rest of us so much more. Being proactive costs much less than being reactive. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to pull their own weight but that's just not possible.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Obama is just the other side of the same corporation.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Rhetoric, rhetoric. Try some facts for once.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
When I was making $8 per hour, I paid about 15-20% to taxes which amounted to about 2K per year but I only got $3-500 back on my tax returns. This is typical of everyone I have ever known and these tax rates are easy to look up. Your bizarre idea that 50% pay no taxes is EASILY refutable.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Again, someone has to work to pay taxes so it's not possible to get a tax return without having paid taxes (by working) in the first place. It's called a "return" for a reason, dumbshit! Another clueless idiot who thinks he knows something but demonstrates his ignorance over and over again.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
You demonstrate your ignorance when you state that someone making 12K per year could pay out over 9K in taxes and receive that entire amount back. It's not possible; no one gets taxed at an effective rate of 75%, not even the wealthy. More likely she paid about 15-20% in taxes and got about 3-5% back. It's a FACT that here in Oakland, General Assistance has to be paid back (in the most liberal state in the union BTW.)
synapse131 2 weeks ago
And the CEOs and executives that took TARP monies and created their own "golden parachutes" aren't leaches? You are looking in the wrong direction. The amounts of money taken up by social services (esp. in the US which has the worst social services of any industrialized nation) is a pittance compared to the defense budget and the overall budget. It's the executives that have been removing billions of dollars from the US; not the poor.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Where did you get the figure that 50% don't pay taxes? That's absurd! The government couldn't be funded if that were the case since the vast majority of the funds collected by taxation are from the non-wealthy.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Funny. When I was working for $8 an hour, I still paid 15-20% taxes and only got a small refund. The reason that taxes are higher on the wealthy is that it's understood that the wealthy make a lot of their money from sources not related to income taxes (non-taxed investments) and they have many many ways of hiding monies off shore and beating the tax system that normal folks do not have. The wealthy don't always invest in ways that benefit the rest of us.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
@walhalla356 Are you replying to the right comment? I AM NOT a Tea Partier. I'm on your side.
synapse131 2 weeks ago
Way to understand constitutional law...
themoertel 2 weeks ago
I agree that corporations are not people and am against this citizens united vs. FEC ruling, but some of the solutions proposed in this video would backfire. A constitutional amendment to declare that corporations (any type of business for that matter) have no right to free speech, free press, free assembly, and petition the government. This would mean that the government would have a right to interfere with the daily practices of a business and would violate the free market.
DameDiabolique 3 weeks ago
@DameDiabolique I am a Freelance Graphic Designer, I own a business, I should have a right to protest ANY action from the government that would interfere with my daily business operations. This is Communism. Not free market.
A better solution would be a more informed voting public. If you have an issue with the way a corporation can spend unlimited money on ads then DON'T WATCH CORPORATE MEDIA!!! Knock on doors and talk to your fellow citizens. That's how you can change the country.
DameDiabolique 3 weeks ago
@DameDiabolique Remember Corporations CAN'T VOTE! Only people can vote. Also, only vote for politicians who have a clear record of voting in the best interests of the people. Don't vote for people who take money from banks and corporations.
DameDiabolique 3 weeks ago 2
@DameDiabolique The essence of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to win an election (above very small local levels) without corporate financing.
akgregor 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How will we create a Constitutional amendment preventing corporate control of elections if it has to be approved by two thirds of our corporate controlled Congress?
Skullworld 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Skullworld 3 weeks ago
Wolf-PAC(dot)com
sensur1 3 weeks ago
We watched this in my sociology class today. The other was how we watched stuff work. I like the visuals, but the lady's peaking annoys me a little (not to be mean or anything :/ ).
emvintful 3 weeks ago
@whatsuponbro what the hell are you talking about? As an Ohioan, the issue we faced with SB 5 and "No on Issue 2" was that ALL state employees would lose collective bargaining rights. ALL. It wasn't about getting them the right to opt out of the union; it was about cutting the union benefits of unionized government employees so the governor and others could decide to cut salaries and benefits for teachers, cops, and others. Get your damn facts straight.
RowansAHare 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The SuperPACS spending have improved democracy. (Not that "democracy" is the end value here. Democracy is a tool, not an end.) The SuperPACS have provided GOP voters with more information and thorough examination of the candidates than any mainstream press outlet has. Super PACs keeping Gingrich in the race helps give those people the opportunity to vote for their candidate. How would "democracy" be improved by the primary season ending the moment the press declares one candidate "inevitable"?
whatupsonbro 4 weeks ago
Its a republic not a democracy. Learn the difference before you make a video with holes and half truths.
TyZi187 1 month ago
@TyZi187 we are a democratic republic. We are not a complete republic.
Zolazora32 3 weeks ago 2
And Lee Doren already destroyed this video.
Annie Leonard is a dork.
kjfierro 1 month ago
If Citizens United is evil for making political speech, Why aren't unions? Uh, ya that's right politicians can control unions!
Unions have just as much clout as corporations, if not more!
rehwr 1 month ago
@rehwr Union interests are workers rights. Corporate interests are profits. Hardly comparable.
itsmarmalade 1 month ago 3
@itsmarmalade Union interests are workers right? Bullcrap! Union interests today are political power! How they can take more tax payer money for themselves to give to politicians who will give them more!
rehwr 1 month ago
@itsmarmalade
LOL workers rights. Just like that time when Unions led the charge against S.B 5 in Ohio. The very ruling that would allow workers to opt out of forced union dues. They support worker rights, unless those rights directly oppose unions.
whatupsonbro 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch video AsJjlC3WaTY
Citizens United supported wants those who disagree stripped of their voting rights and forced to take medication.
2411Hellokitty 1 month ago
This video is stupid. So many lies . . . .
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
Do people who support this, plan on making unions, or any group for the matter, abide by the same rules they plan to impose on corporations?
If any group of people have the right to organize for political purposes, than so do corparations. You can't have it both ways.
Shareholders can sell their stock, if they don't like how a corparation spends money
Solution = shrink the government and elimanate all subsidies and i mean all subsidies not just keep the ones you feel are good.
necrom666 1 month ago
@necrom666 You don't understand. Unions fight for the rights of those who make less money, so by default they are correct and objective people like yourself are nothing more than selfish bigots who want to enslave the average american to corporations.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 I am in the SIEU and they spend my union deus on many politicians I don't like and i have absolutely no say in the matter.
Unions speak out against and spend money on things that have nothing to do with workers rights. SIEU leaders spoke out agianst the IRAQ war. Weather you were against the war or for it matters not. That particular stance has nothing to do with their members. They spent money promoting Obama care. Obama care doesn't improve mine or any members life.
necrom666 1 month ago
@necrom666 What does weather have to do with this?
farvision 1 month ago
@necrom666
"Obama care doesn't improve mine or any members life."
It will take another two years to fully have HCR in place... Obama Care will improve all working poor Americans Life...
Rixar13 4 weeks ago in playlist United 4 the People movement to overturn Citizens United
Let's just let our biased media elect our politicians...
snickeroos 1 month ago
I stopped watching when she said our Republic is a Democracy.
bigken61 1 month ago
@bigken61
Well said. it's a LIBERAL democracy, which makes all the difference.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
Sure is ham fisted libertarian in here.
"The free market's not the problem!", "There isn't anything wrong with profit!".
Oh no? So there's nothing wrong with a system wherein the governing body is bought and sold by a small, unelected elite making decisions in their own interest?
I just don't understand how one can see our modern society and not conclude categorically that profit at the expense of others is wrong, and that the "free market" IS a huge problem.
Keinlicht 1 month ago
@Keinlicht No matter how much money is thrown into a campaign, nobody can force you to vote for someone that you don't want to.
TheDavoo 1 month ago
@TheDavoo No, they can't.
But what they can do is create an environment wherein you can't vote for someone you DO want.
Keinlicht 1 month ago
@TheDavoo
Oh, absolutely - advertizing has no effect on people - that's why Corps spend more on it than R&D.
Haha.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
@HopeForPeaceNow If a company or political campaign forces people to vote or buy a certain way, the people responsible go to jail.
TheDavoo 1 month ago
@HopeForPeaceNow [part 2 of my comment] Oh, but the federal government forcing everyone to buy health insurance against their will; that's okay.
TheDavoo 1 month ago
@HopeForPeaceNow [part 3 of my comment] Oh I almost forgot:
Hahahahaha. Hahahaha. Pretending to laugh at you; it makes me sound so superior and intelligent. Mehahahahahaha. You amuse me. Ha.
TheDavoo 1 month ago
@TheDavoo I added the haha in case you didn't get the sarcasm. It appears it did you no good.
Simple question:
If advertizing has no effect why do Corps pay more for it than R&D? (research and development (hint)).
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Here's a question for you:
Who the heck is saying adverti-ZING has absolutely no effect? What, me??
Please, I don't want to be overly condescending, but go back and read all my posts because you don't have any comprehension of what I'm saying.
TheDavoo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDavoo
Cool.
What did you mean by this?
"No matter how much money is thrown into a campaign, nobody can force you to vote for someone that you don't want to."?
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDavoo Except that the choice of candidates is determined before anyone ever goes to the polls when the politicians go around collecting funds for their campaign coffers. We have no say in this. We ALWAYS end up voting the lesser of the evils (such as Obama!)
synapse131 1 week ago
i might get in trouble for this, but i want some people to take corporate presidents hostage and force them to change
bosebucks375 1 month ago
EEEK!!!!! This is the scariest video i have ever seen! No matter how cute the drawings it is not OK for the government to abridge free speech! Thank god the judges read the first Amendment! This lady really needs to do the same!
nathanlabish 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nathanlabish Free speech by indivduals. Pouring massive amounts of money into your favorites politicians campaign so he'll vote your way when your corp wants to get out of pollution controls or off shore their labor is not the same thing as an individual being allowed to speak their mind (as a voter.) Corporations do not vote and yet they get to completely influence our supposedly democratic process; often for their own benefit.
synapse131 1 week ago
The other hilarious part is that Citizens allowed UNIONS to make unlimited donations to PACs. And unions spent $400 million on campaign advertising in 2010 vs. $300 million by corporations. Corporations represent their shareholders and employees just as unions represent their members. I don't see the difference.
retownsend 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@retownsend Corporations stand to profit massively much of the time. Unions are non-profit entities (at least most of the time.) Unions tend to represent large numbers of people but corporations tend to represent a small number of very wealthy people who think it's OK to get their way despite what the rest of us think.
synapse131 1 week ago
This video is so ridiculous... There isn't anything wrong with profit. Corporations aren't our friends - we aren't asking them to babysit our kids. I don't need the man who runs my gas station to love selling gas nor do I need the man who grows the apples I eat to love being a farmer. People do things for money - they always have, they always will.
Now, I'm going to put on my comfy corporate-made pajamas, return to my corporate-made computer and watch videos on the corporate-made YouTube.
retownsend 1 month ago
@retownsend I'm pretty sure the video only ever said that there's something wrong with profit when it's the highest aspiration.
Keinlicht 1 month ago
OK video. Except America was founded as a Republic NOT a democracy, democracy is only a temporary transition from a Republic to an Oligarchy.
b2i4k7e 1 month ago
America was SUPPOSED to be a republic and not a democracy. That's what our constitution said at least. In a democracy, majority rules. The majority of people that voted a certain thing in have taken away the rights of the few that wanted it out. In a republic however, everyone gets to live as they please with a few minor laws in place so as not to infringe on your unalienable rights... such as if you are a man who is in love with another man and wish to get married.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
That is SUPPOSED to be your business and no one else's, as well as your right. The idea that you should be allowed to place anything in your body that you so please, such a smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, raw milk, and yes... hard drugs... is your constitutional right. The FEW laws in place though, would be stuff like laws that are against the use of force on another person, such as murder and rape.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
and, despite what anyone tells you, AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION. look it up. seriously.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluesyrastapunkraver Very true. The Jefferson Monument is a monument to religious freedom as Jefferson championed the right to follow whatever religion one wanted. He even had his own version of the bible in which he took out most of the stuff that he thought was extraneous.
synapse131 1 week ago
Like the mainstream media against Ron Paul.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
This woman is a stupid lying cunt.
gonavy505 1 month ago
america is based on a republic not a democracy. democracy is good for nobody.look up what a republic is.
yappertrap 1 month ago
@yappertrap we are both a democracy and a republic dude. America is a democratic republic.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yappertrap It's a republic sp[ecifically to protect the rights of the minorities who could be out voted by the majority. A republic based on democratic ideals.
synapse131 1 week ago
Comment removed
coold8d 1 month ago
Comment removed
coold8d 1 month ago
While Wiki homepage is complianing "In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive." against SOPA and PIPA, they should also support Story of Stuff Project to overturn Citizens United v. FEC with their powerful internet influence.
RechLive 1 month ago
We are supposed to be a Democracy, our country is run by sociopaths with money.
nike2422 1 month ago 10
@nike2422 Nope. We are a Republic, As Annie articulates, a Democracy is mob rule, like Greece.
bajaman92075 2 weeks ago
Rocky Anderson 2012!
inspiteofitall07 1 month ago
Vote Communist Vote Obama
AthenasConquest 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AthenasConquest So the biggest corporate stooge, who continued every policy of Bush's, is communist? I hope you're being sarcastic.
synapse131 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol... sad to post your racism all over the internet "
Well, it's been known throughout history that Italians do tend to panic when faced with an overwhelming danger to their lives. Just like what this Italian Captain did. Italian cowardice at its best." GoldenShellback1 12 minutes ago
BadboygamingNet 1 month ago
wolf-pac.com
cmtsoccer9 1 month ago
@calvingyim You're right, we are a republic-democracy.
However, I don't agree with her at all. Many people believe that "person" and "people" are of the same terms (in which they are in common English). However, in legal-language, the terms carry different meanings. Has anyone ever wondered why an individual is required to register a sole-proprietorship with the State - does not a corporation have to do the same?
Believe it or not, our "persons" are corporations as well. Legal-fictions.
TheAgoraWake 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search "Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique" for an in depth analyses. Most of what she has to say is misdirection to manipulate how you feel about this without ever actually talking about what happened in the case. This is full of misdirection, lies, and anti-capitalist propaganda.
HumbleWillis 1 month ago
@calvingyim Search "Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique" for an in depth analyses. Most of what she has to say is misdirection to manipulate how you feel about this without ever actually talking about what happened in the case. This is full of misdirection, lies, and anti-capitalist propaganda.
HumbleWillis 1 month ago
Communist
ronauildooorihop 1 month ago
storyofstuffproject, here is the serbian translation of the video: gusari.org/uploads/The%20Story%20of%20Citizens%20United%20v.%20FEC%20%282011%29.txt
6ypek 1 month ago
How about go out and look at candidates online and see their stances.
CommedyCommedy 1 month ago
People are somewhat to blame to for letting the media affect their decision.
CommedyCommedy 1 month ago
@CommedyCommedy
yeah, in Canada (where I live anyway) most people are to afraid of change and trying to get a better government so we always ended up with that moron Mc Guinty! He's been driving Canada to the ground but the citizens aren't doing anything!
higurashikai09 1 month ago
I crops should have the right to do these things seeing unions can. Either they both get it, or they both don't. You can't have it both ways
Gunnarr123abc 1 month ago
"I'll believe Corporations are people when Texas executes one."
PaceIsTheTrick2 1 month ago 14
I'll be referencing this video on Detroit's 1310 AM Radio tomorrow with Tony Trupiano. I'd like to thank you immensely for creating this wonderful resource. OCCUPY THE COURTS is January 20 NATIONWIDE - share this video as we come up to this call to action. Come to the Federal Courthouse near you and join the protest!
Fuzzytek 1 month ago
I think the biggest reason for why it's bad for corporations to buy politicians is because it begs the question of whether or not that politician can be trusted, and with a congress that's almost completely bought out, a constitutional amendment against this kind of corruption is virtually impossible to pass.
A true grassroots campaign is good way to start in combating this injustice but the people are going to have to operate on a scale equal to women's suffrage and civil rights combined.
cadman2300 1 month ago
The thing is: corporations can allways found one person to give money for they...
TheEvilal 1 month ago
But we DO have bad lawmakers...
The problem IS government, a businessman can't point a gun at your head and tell you to buy products... but he can ask the government to do it for him, and they'll happily oblige.
DackIsBack 1 month ago
Corporations are organizations just like those non-profit organizations, if non-profit organizations have right to influence public policies, why not corporations? Corporations are just organizations of people with same goal: making money, which is not that bad, people all wants to make money.
albb0920 2 months ago
RON PAUL 2012
Dgenr821 2 months ago
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. I'll believe corporations are people when Dick Cheney waterboards one. I'll believe corporations are people when Mississippi lynches one.
wangsta25 2 months ago 2
Elections or lobbying at governments is hopeless, just let the beast hunger. Don't buy from them and they won't have the money to rule you!
Yes, it's a lot harder that just yelling "do it better, you up there!"
We pay for luxury with our own freedom, and we are happy to do so. "Be free! Be yourself! Spend!"
Maybe the latest HD TV won't finally give my miserable life a purpose, but I will see the faces of the next candidates even bigger, yay!
Kaucukovnik666 2 months ago
Gary Johnson 2012!
JJames0913 2 months ago
Frank Zappa 2012!!
ssurfcity 2 months ago
Steve Holt 2012!!
rolyan3 2 months ago
Of course every liberal wants corporations stripped of their right to support candidates (except for the liberal media of course).
Oh, and people are being stripped of their democratic rights if the most advertised candidate is supported by corporations [who don't endorse the Democratic Party]? So people have no choice but to choose the most widely advertised candidate?
The logic of libtards...
cyberpolice9000 2 months ago
@cyberpolice9000 JesusFuckingChrist, there IS no such thing as a 'liberal' media. Who owns the media...rich, rightwing conservatives that control every aspect of what gets put out there. Keep your propaganda to yourself, thankyou verymuch.
ssurfcity 2 months ago
@ssurfcity
Oh come on, FOX may be conservative media, but networks like MSNBC are definitely more liberal. You also say that rich conservatives control every aspect of what gets put on news stations and in newspapers and such? It's a business, so the people control what's put on. If people don't like what a certain company (i.e. Fox) puts on the air, they can just not watch it, they'll lose money and viewers if they don't show what people will willingly watch. It's not slavery lol.
cyberpolice9000 2 months ago
@cyberpolice9000 Simply put, Fux "News" is not news at all. They won several court cases where Ailes/Murdoch sued for the right to edit, distort, and outright lie, while calling themselves a "news" channel. They are simply the propaganda wing of the republican party. Noone said anything about slavery...but they know that there is a huge market for hate in the U.S. and have capitalized on it big time. MSNBC may allow some liberal shows on there, but some have been removed
ssurfcity 2 months ago
@cyberpolice9000 at the request of conservative donors when they got too close to the truth, i.e. Olbermann and Cenk Uygur. Fox, on the other hand spares no expense screwing the truth, and would never consider removing someone that spread too much propaganda. LOL.
ssurfcity 2 months ago
Technically they can. But if things really worked as you suggest, no advertising would have any effect, ever.
The fact that the whole system even works is a proof that it's not a fair game.
Someone being less clever than you doesn't mean he deserves to be your slave. Abusing mental advantage doesn't seem to bother anyone, yet using physical advantage against others is considered wrong. Where's the difference? Nosebleed?
Kaucukovnik666 2 months ago
Best video on youtube ever. People need to turn off their damned TVs and objectively look at the situation.
ftrain65 2 months ago 4
@ftrain65 More like the worst. You have been brainwashed. Ironic to hear you talk about 'objectivity'. Watch v=tJEeKez1Jlw
AustrianEconomistsRu 1 month ago
@ftrain65 Here's another video you might wanna watch:
/watch?v=tJEeKez1Jlw&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=7&feature=plcp
(remove the spaces)
TheDavoo 1 month ago
We need more regulation, more taxes and more spending... and more of the Koch Brothers, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley and Sean Hannity! It's just fine if corporations out spend us! As long as we don't let liberals laugh at us anymore.
trichloramine 2 months ago
Occupy 2012!!!
bigjohnson9687 2 months ago 14
@bigjohnson9687 Occupy should focus on the problem the government creates, instead of attacking the market and people who are simply making money because they give people what they want. It's government that's the problem, not the free market.
AustrianEconomistsRu 1 month ago
"instead of attacking the market and people who are simply making money because they give people what they want." AustrianEconomistsRu
We sure didn't want the economic meltdown they gave us.
$60 trillion in swaps - 51% default rate in the private UNregulated mortgage market - a FLOOD of foreign capital hit America in 2000(Republicans on the FCIC committee blamed the meltdown ONLY on that) - we Could HAVE used that capital to PROMOTE America and Wall Street, we burned it!
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
@HopeForPeaceNow They didn't give us a meltdown. They gave us what we wanted - loans. Govt aided them in hiding the fact that those loans were worthless. The problem isn't people being for-profit. Everyone is. The problem comes when a powerful govt intervenes in the economy. Banks would not have been able to crash the economy without the intervention of a central governing body.
Avoiding the crash would have been easy - Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve).
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
" Banks would not have been able to crash the economy without the intervention of a central governing body." JackofOneTrade567
Really? How did the gov allow Roland Arnell to invent the stated income loan - GSEs could not buy them?
How did gov's "cover-up" allow $600 Trillion in the entire derivatives market?
YEs - gov LOOKED the other way - no doubt - Bush was antiregulation. But the UNregulated private market blew up the bubble.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
"Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve). " JackofOneTrade567
1. False flag I see libertarians - incl Paul - wave constantly. The REAL problem with the Fed, although they won't admit it - is it puts billions in profits back in the treasury. No? Go look it up. It's in competition with greed, profits are nationalized. Nearly $80 billion in 2011. Corps want ALL the profit to go into the private sector and the pockets of the Elite.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
"Simply stop manipulating the interest rates(federal reserve). "JackofOneTrade567
2. IN late '90s - early 2000s a flood of foreign capital invaded the market/s. Enough that the Republicans in the FCIC committee blamed the entire meltdown on it.
A flood of supply (capital) will drive down interests rates on it's own. In fact - by the simple rule of supply and demand, interests rates, if left alone to set themselves, may very well have been even lower.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago