Olbermann suspended

[Xombie]

[quote name='ValleyBengal' timestamp='1289304440' post='939135']
My two cents: Trickle down only works if you have a majority of people at the top who are interested in the welfare of the society they live in. If they are selfish pricks, only interested in building up huge amounts of wealth by exploiting others, it does not work. How would you explain companies that make money still cut back on employees and send jobs to China. At some point, maximizing profits needs to be balanced with ensuring the well-being of the populace that you make money off of. Hence, government is needed to regulate the complete and udder greedy behaviour. Too long have these fat cats got away with everything due to the policies set in place over many years by both Dems and Reps. So, right now we do need a bigger government to rectify the sins of the past, but that bigger government needs to be in place not in the pockets of Joe Average, but in the pockets of those who continually exploit others. So, my answer is yes, less government regulating the lives of the average earner, and a bit more government for those that can afford it.
[/quote]


Okay, but that is the fundamental issue at hand; in the land of equal opportunity, equal worth in the eyes of the law, and equality of one's views, ideals, and lifestyles, the glorification of tearing down of those who have more is being romanticized as if it were a play based on the French Revolution. If this idea is sanctioned by government, popular perception, and then, finally, reality, at what point of choice, lifestyle, political persuasion, etc, etc, do you draw the next line? Who becomes the next French royalty to face the mob and the guillotine?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1289327883' post='939322']
'Little money' can be 'big money' that is simply laundered through a series of rivers. Money is money. You don't actually think that using public funding for elections, that those funds would not trickle to where party leaders would want them to go, do you?
[/quote]


I dont think that it would stop ads and funding of your candidate's ideals ect... that doesn't fund his campaign but Yes because the money would be funded by taxpayers as opposed to large conglomerates or well to dos or large groups of "little money" which means they would be answering to the taxpayers like they are supposed to be doing. They wouldnt have to answer to anyone that doesnt fund their campaign, like they are now.

[John~Galt]

[quote name='ValleyBengal' timestamp='1289304440' post='939135']
My two cents: Trickle down only works if you have a majority of people at the top who are interested in the welfare of the society they live in. If they are selfish pricks, only interested in building up huge amounts of wealth by exploiting others, it does not work. How would you explain companies that make money still cut back on employees and send jobs to China. At some point, maximizing profits needs to be balanced with ensuring the well-being of the populace that you make money off of. Hence, government is needed to regulate the complete and udder greedy behaviour. Too long have these fat cats got away with everything due to the policies set in place over many years by both Dems and Reps. So, right now we do need a bigger government to rectify the sins of the past, but that bigger government needs to be in place not in the pockets of Joe Average, but in the pockets of those who continually exploit others. So, my answer is yes, less government regulating the lives of the average earner, and a bit more government for those that can afford it.
[/quote]

You can't legislate human character. We all have a drive to improve our lot in life. The profit motive is inherently human and not borne of greed or selfishness. Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Edison all did the things they did for a reason. That reason is profit. They had a desire to improve their station in life and that of their descendants. They didn't do what they did out of kindness, these great men did the things they did because by doing so they could became wealthy. Money is not the root of all evil. In fact many of the great industrialists and inventors that gave rise to the industrial revolution gave back an awful lot. How many libraries, museums, schools and hospitals carry the name Carnegie or Vanderbilt?

As for modern businesses exporting jobs you can either condemn them as fat cats or take a look at the reasons they do it.

US labor is expensive. Payroll taxes, FICA, health insurance, union demands, and so on.

We have high corporate taxes in the US. We have a high capital gains tax. (which goes back into effect soon.)

We have a massive web of regulations that require businesses to spend a ton of time and money just on compliance issues. Some even have whole departments whose sole job is to study administrative law and make sure the company isn't going to incur some massive fine.

In other countries you have business friendly governments, low entitlement taxes (if any), a population that is eager to work for many times less than an American worker without a retirement package or health insurance, and the ability to move the goods they produce back to the US at a low cost.

We also currently have a president that never hesitates to use words like fat cats and deride CEOs and business owners.

Their choice then is minimal or no profit in the US meaning likely failure or cheap inexpensive labor and materials over seas. The choice is an easy and logical one.

This is not something we as a country can't fix. But as long as we play politics instead of trying to strike a balance between the competing forces driving this we won't fix a damn thing and we will keep losing jobs to over seas labor.

[Xombie]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289328541' post='939332']
I dont think that it would stop ads and funding of your candidate's ideals ect... that doesn't fund his campaign but Yes because the money would be funded by taxpayers as opposed to large conglomerates or well to dos or large groups of "little money" which means they would be answering to the taxpayers like they are supposed to be doing. They wouldnt have to answer to anyone that doesnt fund their campaign, like they are now.
[/quote]



They would be subservient to party leaders, meaning that we would see even less moderate politicians as the career politicians would begin a race to extremes of their spectrums simply to insure that they remain in the good graces of their 'team'. Hell, we seen an example of that, granted for a different reason, in the Chabot-Driehaus race in the Cincinnati area. The Dems pulled funding when they realized it was a fairly certain lost cause.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1289453332' post='939866']
They would be subservient to party leaders, meaning that we would see even less moderate politicians as the career politicians would begin a race to extremes of their spectrums simply to insure that they remain in the good graces of their 'team'. Hell, we seen an example of that, granted for a different reason, in the Chabot-Driehaus race in the Cincinnati area. The Dems pulled funding when they realized it was a fairly certain lost cause.
[/quote]


They would, but none of the funding would go directly to the campaigns in what I am talking about.

[Jamie_B]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9_UnqyzDq0[/media]

From a Republican (again for those who think I only post from the left)

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289488471' post='939916']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9_UnqyzDq0[/media]

From a Republican (again for those who think I only post from the left)
[/quote]


I have seen two conservatives posted on this forum by Jamie this morning. I am starting to suspect he is a tea party operative bent on infiltrating this forum on th eorders of his right wing Zionist masters.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='John~Galt' timestamp='1289489051' post='939919']
I have seen two conservatives posted on this forum by Jamie this morning. I am starting to suspect he is a tea party operative bent on infiltrating this forum on th eorders of his right wing Zionist masters.


[/quote]

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288987549' post='937560']
Think FoxNews will do the same to their people that are guilty of the contributions too?


Yeah me neither.
[/quote]

NBC has a policy forbidding it, FOXNews does not.

Personally, I think any individual should be allowed to give as much money to any candidate as he or she wants, as long as it's transparent. But Olberman violated his company's policy. It's as simple as that.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289499491' post='939942']
NBC has a policy forbidding it, FOXNews does not.

Personally, I think any individual should be allowed to give as much money to any candidate as he or she wants, as long as it's transparent. But Olberman violated his company's policy. It's as simple as that.
[/quote]


A policy that should exist in both MSNBC and Fox. That is a matter of journalistic integrity.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289499661' post='939943']
A policy that should exist in both MSNBC and Fox. That is a matter of journalistic integrity.
[/quote]

There are other organizations that do not have the policy as well. Don't lay it all on FOXNews. Time and USN&WR also allow them, and CBS did until this past September.

Besides, anyone with half a brain already knew Olberman was a liberal, so his "journalistic integrity" is no worse off than it already was.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289511320' post='940013']
There are other organizations that do not have the policy as well. Don't lay it all on FOXNews. Time and USN&WR also allow them, and CBS did until this past September.

Besides, anyone with half a brain already knew Olberman was a liberal, so his "journalistic integrity" is no worse off than it already was.
[/quote]

[|Elflocko|]

I would be loathe to call him a journalist...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289511320' post='940013']
There are other organizations that do not have the policy as well. Don't lay it all on FOXNews. Time and USN&WR also allow them, and CBS did until this past September.

Besides, anyone with half a brain already knew Olberman was a liberal, so his "journalistic integrity" is no worse off than it already was.
[/quote]


And I would call on them as well, so yes Foxnews IN ADDITION, to the rest.

And anyone with a quarter of a brain already knew that bias and integrity are not the same thing.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289513773' post='940026']
And I would call on them as well, so yes Foxnews IN ADDITION, to the rest.

And anyone with a quarter of a brain already knew that [b]bias and integrity are not the same thing.
[/b][/quote]



Olbermann has neither.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289514002' post='940030']
Olbermann has neither.
[/quote]


He doesnt have bias?

Even I think he has bias.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289513773' post='940026']
And I would call on them as well, so yes Foxnews IN ADDITION, to the rest.

And anyone with a quarter of a brain already knew that bias and integrity are not the same thing.
[/quote]

How do you think they are different, and why does a political contribution affect his "integrity" if they are different.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289514150' post='940031']
He doesnt have bias?

Even I think he has bias.
[/quote]



My bad. Yes he has bias. That's all he has.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289514256' post='940033']
How do you think they are different, and why does a political contribution affect his "integrity" if they are different.
[/quote]


I dont think they are different, I said in the thread that I am ok with his suspension and would like to see these kinds of rules carried through the entire industry.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289513773' post='940026']
And I would call on them as well, so yes Foxnews IN ADDITION, to the rest.

And anyone with a quarter of a brain already knew that bias and integrity are not the same thing.
[/quote]

Why was it your first inclination to attack only FoxNews?

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289511320' post='940013']
There are other organizations that do not have the policy as well. Don't lay it all on FOXNews. Time and USN&WR also allow them, and CBS did until this past September.

Besides, anyone with half a brain already knew Olberman was a liberal, so his "journalistic integrity" is no worse off than it already was.
[/quote]

This.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1289515072' post='940039']
Why was it your first inclination to attack only FoxNews?
[/quote]


Because I knew they did it, I wasnt aware of the others that did, and would be entirely ok with implementing the same rules on them too.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289515159' post='940040']
Because I knew they did it, I wasnt aware of the others that did, and would be entirely ok with implementing the same rules on them too.
[/quote]

Fair enough..

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289513773' post='940026']
And I would call on them as well, so yes Foxnews IN ADDITION, to the rest.

And anyone with a quarter of a brain already knew that [b]bias and integrity are not the same thing.[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289514418' post='940035']
[b]I dont think they are different[/b], I said in the thread that I am ok with his suspension and would like to see these kinds of rules carried through the entire industry.
[/quote]

Which is it????

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1289780668' post='941362']
Which is it????
[/quote]


Sorry I thought you were asking if Olbmerman and Hannity were the same in what they did, and if they both deserved the same punishment, to which I was saying yes.

No Bias and Journalistic integrity are not the same thing.