DUmpster diving by Claymore
Claymore is doing the jobs that Mexicans won’t;
Military Welfare Industrial Complex:
“Wait! I thought The President fixed this shit!!!”
I get it…it was the Secret Service’s fault…makes all the sense in the world:
Old and in the way…until November, then go vote for Alan Grayson:
Senseless death is senseless, but shouldn’t get in the way of politics:
Advancing in another direction.
“Oh noes…not mah gummit cheeeze!!”
Category: Liberals suck
These People are *really* stuck on stupid!
I liked the one about the First Lady going to Spain to comfort a grieving friend.
I usually go to the friend’s house and have a cup of coffee at the kitchen table, but that’s just me…
I read an article by a historian from Australia a while back. His idea was that there were three watershed developments in the last couple of centuries: 1) perfecting of techniques of mass production, 2) development of mass communications, 3) the perfecting of techniques of mass marketing by corporations. Every time I read this blog I am reminded of point #3 – you guys are the poster children demonstrating successful branding by corporate powers. The funny thing is, you’re not even aware of it, you guys think you thought up this stuff. Scary….
hey Jonn
Did Joe have a point? Heh.
Joe, I’m not sure I understand your point. For corporations to survive, they would have to mass market, wouldn’t they? It would be normal for anyone providing a good or service to package their product to please their potential customers, and furthermore, to attempt to persuade their potential customers to buy their product.
If your point is that we’re unaware of the influence wielded by that marketing, I suppose some people are ignorant; but I do think most people are at least grossly aware of the influence the corporations are using.
Was that your point, or did I overshoot the mark?
It is sad to say after reading some of the stuff they put up on the DU it seems as Joey may be one of the more intellegent ones out there.
The point is that most conservative talking points – health care reform, dependence on oil, gun laws, banking laws, wars in the middle east, the economy, and on and on, have been framed by corporate media to be issues of FREEDOM!, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!, PATRIOTISM!, NO GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT! etc., and most of the posts on this site reflect the corporate view to a tee. Coincidence?
And most of the barbs pointed at any other (rational?) points of view reflect the exact way corporations would want you to think.
But you do understand that the liberal talking points use the same methods and machinations for their points of view also, don’t you? It’s how we communicate. We point and counter-point, no matter what we are discussing. It’s up to the “consumer” to determine their “product preference,” isn’t it?
…and here I was thinking that I was simply making fun of window licking DUtards. Silly me.
But for example, big banks want as little oversight as possible. That way they can continues to scam tens of millions of Americans, and even municipalities, school districts, etc., with bogus, inscrutable financial instruments that help mainly those same banks. But just coming out and stating, “we want to continue with this dysfunctional system so we can continue to reap unconscionable profits” wouldn’t work. So they spend big bucks supporting politicians, PACS, etc. who frame the issue as a matter of, “government is the problem, not the solution”, or, “unfettered free markets are essential to the American way”, or, “government oversight is intrinsically ineffecient, corrupt and un-American”, and so on. Entities supporting liberal platforms are not nearly as well heeled, so the message is not browbeaten into us with the same intensity or apparent success.
Both sides have their proponents, of course. I think the best thing to do is realize two things:
1.) No machine is perfect. The same is true with anything we build, be it a corporation, or an ideal. Or perhaps more accurately, anything we build will metastasize; just like cancer, if it is viable, it will simply grow all out of proportion to what it was meant to be originally. (The financial institutions would be an example of that.)
2.) It is up to us to control what we create. We must also constantly weigh pro and con, and good against bad. It’s a messy process, but there doesn’t seem to be any other way to do it.
I will add a personal observation here. I think we polarize arguments to simplify the concept of what we are trying to define. We tend to argue from the point we think most important, rather than from the concept itself, because of the level of complexity of such an argument.
#10 Claymore:
See what you started? Shame on you… : )
Yes, I agree PintoNag. In a forum like this we almost have to over simplify extremely complex issues (or at least I think they’re complex although some posters reduce them to simplistic slogans), and this leads to misunderstandings. But I like the analogy of cancer metastasizing, and it holds true for corporations or governments. In reality each issue is a complex system unto itself, dependent on thousands of inputs and thousands of outputs, but that’s hard to express here.
It does, however, make for a wonderful dogpile on a blog, doesn’t it? All the snarling and snapping that goes on… What WOULD we discuss if we all thought alike, right?
Later, Joe!
Why are folks still feeding Joe?
OK, Joey, what’s an “unconscionable profit”? As a percentage of what’s expended to earn said profit, what’s an “unconscionable” amount?
Now, for Joey’s biggest laugher in this post, “Entities supporting liberal platforms are not nearly as well heeled”. Joey, Joey, ever heard of George Soros? I’d say he, and his pet cause, liberalism, is pretty well-heeled. Teresa Heinz Kerry? Bill Gates? Mike Illitch? Sounds like libs are, on the whole, “well-heeled”.
UpNorth,
That’s a drop in the bucket compared to BP/KBR/Halliburton/Goldman-Sachs/GE/Lockheed-Martin/CitiCorp…………
Bull shit Joe, pure and simple. You keep trying to paint the picture of the poor lib, downtrodden, depending on mom and pop donating a dollar here, a dollar there, the poor union schlub donating whatever his evile employer doesn’t take from him, just to get a plaintive voice in the corporate wilderness.
Go check out the top 5 wealthiest senators Joey, the names are Kerry, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein and Lautenberg. The one thing they have in common? They all have a D after their name. And, last time I looked, every one of the companies you listed employs Americans. Is that a bad thing now? They shouldn’t be able to contribute to candidates of their choice? And most of them give money to both sides of the aisle.
But, mostly, Joey boy, answer the question, “what’s an “unconscionable profit”?