You're serious? You really believe this? After all that we've witnessed in the last eight years-- Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, the most opaque presidency in American history, torture, the Patriot Act, Christian fundamentalists striving to strip others of their rights and to discredit solid science, rightwing hate radio that sounds not far removed from radio broadcasts in America, systematic and pervasive corruption throughout the government-- After all of this you think the left is the threat to America? You think progressives are the dangerous ones? I'll never understand diseased and thoroughly distorted minds such as your own.
I think you're right here. Judging by FOX's broadcasting outside the news, it's absolutely clear that FOX is above all a business driven by profit. They pandered to rightwing hate primarily because it was lucrative. It's highly likely they'll begin to retool should Obama win and we get a supermajority.
The loaf of bread example is a false analogy. The reason the wealthy pay more is because they benefit disproportionately from our government and all the services the government provides. Their profits wouldn't be possible without all of those services, law, infrastructure, and military. Ergo, they owe more.
The thing I never can get is why Republicans seem to think that higher taxes for those who make more is unjust. The premise seems to be that somehow the high earners are in exactly the same boat as the low earners. However, businesses and corporations benefit disproportionately from our system. They are provided with a trained work force from our schools and universities, that allow them to excel. They are given patents to new technologies and drugs that are the product of government and university research. They are provided with a top rate infrastructure that allows for their commerce and communication. They benefit from a military that protects their interests abroad and helps to maintain stability in the world. And finally laws disproportionately benefit their interests. The massive profits and expansion of these businesses would not be possible without these things, and therefore big money earners have a greater debt to the public.
I would also like to know where all these small companies are that are supposedly the backbone of our economy. As far as I can tell the backbone of our economy lies in massive corporations, banks, and mortgage companies, not small businesses. You really think it's reasonable to give these companies tax breaks when they don't create jobs here but outsource them elsewhere to maximize productivity and profit?
I'm not so sure. Yes, if the allegations against the brother-in-law are true, they are atrocious. But does this mean that an honest man and dutiful civil servant should lose his job because he refuses to pursue an issue that is beyond his jurisdiction or responsibilities in that particular role? Do we really want a capricious person like this in the White House?
One of the things I haven't yet heard mentioned in relation to this story is the US Attorney scandal. Yes, if indeed it is true that the brother-in-law was doing the things he's alleged to have been doing these are terrible things. But that does not justify terminating an officials position because he won't bend to your will and do what you demand. Doesn't this sound a lot like the draconian practices of the Administration with regard to those attorneys that wouldn't prosecute their will? Is that really what we want on the short track to become president? Isn't this precisely the sort of cronyism and abuse of power we need to get rid of?
Having vivid recollections of how supporters of other candidates were treated by many Clinton supporters prior to her loss in Iowa and on Super-Tuesday, it is extremely difficult for me to feel sympathy for these particular people. Again and again non-Clinton supporters were haughtily told that she was inevitable and that any criticism of her positions was "doing the work of republicans for them". Again and again there were calls for loyalty oaths: "granting that she does win the nomination-- and she's inevitable, so it's entirely likely --will you support her?" I can only imagine how these Clinton supporters would be acting now. The thing is, I don't think supporters of other candidates would be acting this way were Clinton the nominee. Ultimatums do not sit well with me, nor do I think they are particularly strategic. For example, those remaining Clinton supporters that claim that they will not support Obama unless she is the VP put Obama in an impossible position because as a presidential candidate he cannot be seen as bowing to that sort of blackmail. Moreover, from all of the time I've spent on the PUMA blogs, I just don't see how anything could be said that would persuade them short of giving her the nomination.
Well, going by the low numbers at Alegre's blog and this video of one of their protests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKIpI8l9F
YA), not to mention pictures of one of the BBQ's in New York, there's little evidence that this is a big movement.
Ironically, many Obama supporters believe that Clinton is less progressive. This view was based on her hawkishness as indicated in war vote,Iran vote, and public statements, her economic policies (Bill continued neo-conservative economic policies of dismantling market regulation and social programs, though in a somewhat muted form), her ties to corporate lobbyists, her support for things like the flag burning amendment and video game prohibitions, and the way in which she distanced herself from activists. I've never really understood how people can look at Clinton and think that she is a champion of progressive causes, which isn't to say that Obama is.