View Single Post
Old 04-15-2009, 02:46 PM   #276
zerospinboson
"Assume a can opener..."
zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
zerospinboson's Avatar
 
Posts: 755
Karma: 1942109
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Local Cluster
Device: iLiad v2, DR1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post
I snipped away most of your response, because I wanted to address only the quoted bit.

I would argue that preferring corporate interests over private interests is certainly a disease that America has suffered from to various degrees at various times.
Actually, I wasn't just talking about bailouts (although tariffs, the protection of the steel and auto industries etc. readily come to mind, with protectionism happening there as late as 2002 or so that I've read about, and are hardly dissimilar), I'm also talking about the level of private/consumer legal protection against corporate interests. A particularly disturbing thing that comes to mind here is the reselling of credit card transaction histories to other corporations (such as those doing the datamining for Rove's microtargeting operation for the 2004 election), and other types of abuse of private information. The fact that that is legal is simply inconceivable to me (never mind the voter manipulation issues), and other along with me. (and similar examples that I cannot readily remember atm) Or how, at times, it seems that FDA members seem to have rather startling conflicts of interest, but still are allowed on the committee. (Which suggests that lobbies or nepotism overrule consumer protection concerns, and which affects us as well, because of the importance of the FDA for releasing any new medication into the wild.)

Quote:
But then, I'm the radical sort who believes that 90% or more of what the US Federal Government does is strictly unconstitutional -- including many things that directly affect my pocketbook like funding research at my University. Specifically, I just don't buy the incredible stretching of the Commerce Clause of the constitution that the Supremes have used to justify Federal involvement in almost everything. I believe much more strongly in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution... which would make all our recent bail-outs strictly illegal!

So take that attitude into account when you read my posts!

Xenophon
Will do. I do hope you're not one of these silly people, though
zerospinboson is offline   Reply With Quote