Movie News

Nordling Votes For THE CAMPAIGN!

Published at: Aug. 8, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

Nordling here.

Angry comedy can be the best comedy.  And THE CAMPAIGN, for most of its running time, is very angry.  It's a lot smarter than the trailers seem to indicate, but it really shouldn't be a surprise, considering the people involved - Jay Roach, who not only directed the Austin Powers movies but also RECOUNT, the HBO film about the 2000 Presidential elections, knows his way around both comedy and politics.  Screenwriters Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell helped write and produce EASTBOUND AND DOWN, so they can hit their targets pretty accurately.

Then, you have Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis, who pull no punches (literally, at some points), who have always been brave when it comes to their comedy, going whereever it takes for a laugh.  But they never forget that they're making a point, too - THE CAMPAIGN has a lot to say about the game of politics in the United States right now, and if you're a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or independent, I think the movie has something to say to all of us right now, and that's this - politics, as we know it, is a joke.

There's not one moment in THE CAMPAIGN where Cam Brady (Farrell) or Marty Huggins (Galifianakis), in their stump speeches, say anything of importance or value.  Instead, it's all buzz words, "family values", and telling their audiences exactly what they want to hear.  Brady finds himself in a situation that he's not exactly used to - he's been congressman for Hammond, North Carolina for 10 years, all of them unopposed.  But after a sex scandal puts him in a bad light, the Motch brothers (John Lithgow and Dan Ackroyd, practically playing the Duke brothers from TRADING PLACES) decide to back a new horse, Marty Huggins, who before running for office was a tour guide for Hammond.  Marty's an embarrassment to his dad (Brian Cox) and mostly clueless about politics, so the Motchs bring in Tim Wattley (Dylan McDermott) to sharpen his image.

Cam isn't used to competition, and Marty is out of his element.  So as the two constantly try to one up each other to win, they make a national farce out of their race.  Doesn't matter to the Motch brothers who wins anyway - all they want is to build a Chinese factory in Hammond's district, and "insource" cheap-paying labor.  If Brady or Huggins starts to lag in the polls, they'll just switch to the other candidate.  In this election, whoever wins, we'll all really lose.

It's difficult to review this movie on its face - it's very funny, with moments that made me have to catch my breath, as Cam and Marty each try to outdo the other, from commercials, to interfering with each other's families, to all-out warfare.  As comedies go, this is one of the funniest of the year.  But it's what THE CAMPAIGN has to say that gives the movie real weight.  The specter of the Citizens United ruling informs the movie - THE CAMPAIGN isn't naive enough to say that without it things would be so much better, but it certainly lets us know that politics right now seem to be the worst they've ever been.  As the Motch brothers (thinly veiled caricatures of the Koch brothers) influence the election with their limitless money, they yank Cam and Marty around like puppets, and the more they spend, the more outrageous their candidate's behavior becomes.  It's all very funny in the movie, but one can't help but think that the reality might not be as far off as we would like, either.

The major drawback to the movie, to me, is while Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis don't hold back in their performances, the movie takes an about-face in the final moments to try to wrap things up with a happy ending.    Considering the work the screenwriters did with EASTBOUND AND DOWN, I was actually hoping that the movie would end on a much darker, more mean-spirited note.  The corrupting power of money in politics is all over THE CAMPAIGN, but in its final moments there remains an optimism about our American values that didn't seem to fit the message of the movie.  Those are nice ideals, that our votes and our values really do matter when confronted with all that money and power, but the reality these days seems to be quite different.  People coming out of THE CAMPAIGN will come out laughing and satisfied, I'm sure, but right now we could use a little bit of dissatisfaction and anger, and I hope that audiences will leave with a little more to think about than when they came in.  But for much of THE CAMPAIGN's running time, the filmmakers are using comedy in the best way - to agitate, to illuminate, and to make us laugh, even while we shake our heads in disgust at where we're at as a country right now.  I'm glad THE CAMPAIGN is out there.

Plus, a baby gets punched.  Noisy little fuckers.

Nordling, out.  Follow me on Twitter!

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m. CST

    A Baby gets punched?

    by chuffsterUK

    Oh dear...

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Brian Cox you say?

    by Ryan

    Count me in!

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:33 p.m. CST

    First

    by BoyNamedSue

    My first time!

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    So it corrupted the election...

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...because there were two candidates instead of an unopposed incumbent? Odd.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:41 p.m. CST

    hah, you got denied

    by Saracen1

    Looks like you spent two minutes trying to come up with something clever to say, and failed. Also: Grow up. What's with this "First" bullshit? Also also: Saw the trailers for this flick, I'm sold.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:44 p.m. CST

    SAD NEWS

    by paulloch

    Bob Hoskins has Parkinson's. Has to retire from acting. Hate to see what happened to Ali happen to him. I know it's not an obit, but someone on this board post something on his excellent career. Even in bad films, like Mario Bros., he never gave less than 100%. In good films, he owned the screen. Have loved him ever since seeing Pennies from Heaven late night on PBS decades ago.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Two fart jokes in the trailer alone.

    by Mosquito March

    No thanks.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Yeah, the ending is the screenwriters' fault...

    by Green

    Considering the work the screenwriters did with EASTBOUND AND DOWN, I was actually hoping that the movie would end on a much darker, more mean-spirited note.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 6 p.m. CST

    Screenwriter's Fault: Let's try this again...

    by Green

    ...since the site didn't post my whole comment. NORDLING SAYS: "Considering the work the screenwriters did with EASTBOUND AND DOWN, I was actually hoping that the movie would end on a much darker, more mean-spirited note." My guess is it probably did, and in all likelihood the studio probably changed it.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 6:29 p.m. CST

    A movie by the LAST group of people I'd take political lessons from.

    by Royston Lodge

    Fuck this shite and go rent In The Loop instead.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Baby punched in face = ticket sold

    by kindofabigdeal

  • That's comedy gold...

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Tim Wattley?

    by Ian Masterson

    Isn't that the name of the dentist Bryan Cranston played on Seinfeld?

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST

    I've seen a baby being raped on-screen

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    Baby punching is no bigggie.

  • Even though your obviously mentioning A Serbian Film, try explaining that when their waterboarding you at a FEMA camp.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Do You Really Need To Have Why...

    by AidanJames

    Citizens United is a bad thing explained to you? I mean... really? It's not that hard to find out. At all. At least if you have any imagination, and aren't filthy rich. And don't have any delusions about becoming filthy rich if you aren't already. And aren't a complete fucking moron.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Was there a character named George Whoros?

    by Vicconius

    You know... based on George Soros?

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:32 p.m. CST

    if you're a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or independent

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    I'm a fuckin anarchist; what does this movie have to say to me??

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Will see this just to see how the baby punch scene plays out

    by nephilim138

    does the baby get rocked, Raging Bull style? Would be hilarious.

  • Classic

  • The thing the anti-CU rhetoric (like yours) tends to ignore is scale, and anonymity. And the cowardly thing about it is that the weak sister "first amendment" argument that's solely there to attempt to scare people away from arguing about it. What's bad about it is that the people with the MOST money will back candidates with the worst ideas in terms of the well being of anyone who doesn't own or run a multi-national corporation. Which I've got no problems with if it wasn't... say it with me... anonymous. It being anonymous lets candidates off the hook for things that should be open season to any voter who cares to look at who's corporation is up what candidate's ass. Nah. You know the first amendment argument is bullshit. You have to. Anyone with brains enough to click a button to post and use the "enter" key to form a break can figure that out. There's no reason for the anonymity to be in that bill. I dare anyone to give me a (valid, sane) reason for it. But hey, for just asking a semi-rhetorical question I was assumed to be a liberal, pro-Obama, and anti-freedom of speech... Must be what it feels like to walk into a Tea Party rally as anything other than a retarded white person...

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    @alienfanatic

    by AidanJames

    Funny how anarchists only exist in places with police and wellfare no?

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    krypton kid : Dudley Moore is your benchmark for comedy gold?

    by Obi Wanna Cannoli

    You mean the guy who made a career out of playing drunks? Yeah that is comedy gold if you were around in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. The reason they don't have a Dudley Moore's Arthur these days is we can't find an actress as ugly,drunk, and crazy as Liza Minnelli.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 8:56 p.m. CST

    winona_ryders_pussy_juice : I will waterboard you for free

    by Obi Wanna Cannoli

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST

    politics are the worst they've ever been...

    by nemov

    Anyone who thinks that or says that should be forced to take an American election history class. It's just not true. It's not close to being true.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    stockardchanningtatum - Yes, he's a dentist.

    by Mennen

  • Pass.

  • That's soooooooooo funny! Hehehehehehehehehehehehheheheh.

  • Heheheheheheheheheheheh.

  • #1 - They are union thugs who want to shut down any opposition to the advantage unions have (union donations don't count as corporate donations). People who support more liberty and less government HAVE to spend more money than leftists and big government types. They don't have the built in advantage of free and unregulated rent-a-mobs, volunteers, door knockers, and campaign foot soldiers that every leftist politician has. That is why it is such complete bullshit for people to get all riled up (on either side) about how much more money Romney is raising at this point than Obama. Obama doesn't need to raise as much money; he has the unions to do the gruntwork for free. #2 - They are misguided. The government taxes and spends trillions of dollars a year, and gives out hundreds of billions in subsidies, welfare, grants, aid, and the like. At the same time it makes and/or breaks people and businesses' livelihoods with tens of thousands of pages of new regulations every year. Why on Earth is it strange that people would try to lobby and spend money to influence the government? The reason there's so much money in politics is because the government has so much power. If you get the government out of our fucking lives and let Americans drive the economy and the country, there will be less incentive for people to try and influence it. If I'm a brewer, and there's bill in Congress that is going to require a whole shitload of new regulations that are going to require me to spend a whole bunch of money to comply with the new rules, force me to increase the price of my beer, and decrease my profits and ability to pay my workforce, you can BET YOUR ASS that I'm going to hire someone (or team up with a lobbying group) to go up on Capitol Hill and give Congress a what 'fer. I'm going to spend a whole bunch of money trying to defeat these new regulations, and if I'm willing to cross the ethical line, I might just try and buy off a few politicians. But if the government kept its nose out of the brewing business (like it should), then you eliminate the lobbying, the spending, and the corruption. It is government control that contributes to corruption and money in politics. No amount of campaign finance reform will fix that.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    winona_ryders_pussy_juice is a baby raper!

    by Queefer Sutherland

    Probably watching your home movies, you sick fuck, weren't you?

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Does anyone here remember the video game Midnight Resistance?

    by ajit maholtra

    I used to play that game a lot back in the year 1990. It was one of the few games with a rotating joystick. Here's a clip: <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beoHC4KCq4I

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Baby Raper is an awesome GWAR song.

    by adeceasedfan

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    yes fart jokes means I'm not showing up

    by Rupee88

    Just sets the bar very very low

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Didn't Jay Roach direct Dinner for Schmucks?

    by ThaWhiteShadow

    God that movie was bad. I will give this one a chance though, if only for the baby punching scene.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Ferrell is STILL trying to get laughs off of Bush 43

    by Sir Loin

    His career's been over for years, yet somehow this turd gets lead roles. Pony up, lefties. He'll be starting up a Kickstarter fund for OLD SCHOOL 2 eventually.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:21 p.m. CST

    lol gunrunner ... union thugs, huh

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    Now you're scared of unions??? Man it's too bad you missed the 80s, you would have LOVED being scared of satanists!! Hopefully you're still scared of communists/socialists, or is it just all about being afraid of your local city council passing sharia? what a tool...

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:26 p.m. CST

    daddylonghead - I'm not scared of union thugs...

    by GunRunner

    They don't have the power they once did. But we won't let Obama try and turn back the tide with bullshit like card check and the Disclose Act. The days of you and your union thug buddies showing up at peoples' houses with a smile and a baseball bat when they don't tow the union line are over, ass clown.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:40 p.m. CST

    lol me and my union thug buddies!!!!!!!!

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    Love it!! Though I don't envy you your paranoia, you sad little freak. YOU WON'T GET ME, NOT EVEN WITH ALL YOUR SATANIST COMMUNIST UNION THUG BUDDIES... YOU WANT MY PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS, BUT THE JOKE'S ON YOU! I LISTENED TO NEWSMAX AND BOUGHT GOLD!!!

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST

    ajit_maholtra is my buddy

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    But I don't believe offhand that he's a union thug. Hello to all my buddies!!!

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST

    daddylonghead - Looks like you don't read much, do you...

    by GunRunner

    The blockade appeared to defy a federal restraining order issued last week against the union after it was accused of assaults and death threats.

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:45 p.m. CST

    daddylonghead - Looks like you don't read much, do you...

    by GunRunner

    http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html

  • Aug. 8, 2012, 11:45 p.m. CST

    You being an ignoramus doesn't change the facts, you know...

    by GunRunner

    We're not surprised," Duscha said. "A lot of the protesters were telling us this in only the start.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 12:19 a.m. CST

    shitty AICN TB software 3, gunrunner 0

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    What a shut-out! Not even a close game. Can't blame the terrifying & sinister UNION THUGS this time... ...or can you???

  • maybe i am "misremembering" history classes, but i remember reading something about slavery and women not having any rights and gays being kicked out of the military and only land owning white men getting to vote and mixed race marriages being illegal and children being used as a labor force... that was THIS country before TODAY... FUCK YOU if you think we are getting worse... we may not be a shining city on a fucking hill, but we are the first and largest modern democracy in the world. the only thing "worse" about this country is that it's harder for white male protestants to make a middle class living without going to college. cry me a fucking river.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 12:38 a.m. CST

    anyway, glad to hear this is a funny movie to watch

    by antonphd

  • so, i think i'll just keep voting for moderate democrats, thank you

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    What this movie needs is Brian Cox...

    by ThulsaBoom

    ...damn it, he's actually in it isn't he? I really wanted to be part of the joke.

  • ...no one else posted. I checked a week later and there were only two posts, both mine. Life's a bitch, then you die alone.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Union Thugs<Brian Cox<Baby Punching<Austin Powers<Brian Cox Again

    by Xenodistortion

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Brian Cox<Keith David<A Serbian Film

    by Xenodistortion

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 3:14 a.m. CST

    FIRST < FACT < COX < KEITH DAVID

    by Xenodistortion

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:22 a.m. CST

    My problem with movies like these

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    Nordling, you may be correct in stating that this movie has an undecurrent of serious crtiticism of the Ameican political machine. However, it comes wrapped in a stupid comedy aimed prinmarily at the cheap seats. Movies like this, (and just to be clear, I haven't seen it so my criticism is admittedly prejudicedand maybe way off base), may deliver a message but it's lost amidst a sea of fart jokes. a show like The Newsroom has something to say, and it truly stays bipartisan most of the time. However, a show like the Newsroom will never find a fraction of the audience that Will and Zach's dick-joke manifesto will see on opening night alone. That's sad, really, because along with having something very important to say, The Newsroom is really fucking funny. It's just really fucking funny in a really fucking intelligent way so the humor, not being of the gross-out variety is missed on a lot of people who take their entertainment on a spoon-fed face value level. Now, this movie may be funny, hell, it may be hilarious. However, Nordling, you spend almost the entire review talking about the movies veiled criticism and what the film really has to say. My bet is that the movie has more to say on butts and farts than it does on the state of American politics and that's okay, we have room for all kinds here. Just don't try to make the movie smarter than it really is. And again, I haven't seen it yet, so I may be totally off here. I'm pretty sure I'm not, though.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:41 a.m. CST

    guillotines and duels and bloody revolutions

    by Giltar

    So we've got two choices? This sad mess and the French Revolution? I guess that's what happens when compromise is a dirty word

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:45 a.m. CST

    zach..galifibutkiss....

    by Balkin Flabgurter

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Thanks for the reveal on the ending.

    by MovieManStill

    I'll skip it. Despise tacked-on happy conclusions - especially after being forced to endure the real circus, which will certainly not leave us laughing.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:30 a.m. CST

    A message from Sarah Silverman:

    by UltraTron

    Hi everyone. Ok so this whole thing got screwed up. I'll explain. So me coming out of the closet as Sarah Silverman was supposed to coincide with a funny or die video that would have been a cross promotion of sorts for the campaign and also the subject of a new Ted talk I was going to do(one that hopefully was aired this time for not sucking). Well all that got thrown out the window when Will was offered a new gig as Pan. He had to drop everything and dress up as Dionysius. I even helped him with his costume. Anyways, it was supposed to be funny and would have made more sense if it went as planned. The main joke would have centered around one of UltraTron's comments being read aloud by Will's character and then my Sarah Silverman/Ultratron persona confronting him directly, declaring- I AM ULTRATRON BITCH! Hope this clears everything up.

  • HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh!

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Ian Holm will OWN in this movie!!!

    by Dogmatic

    Well...someone haddasayit.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST

    ifyoumade...

    by grassh0pperunit

    The problem with these sort of situations is that when Clooney or any of the liberal celebrities holds one of those benefit dinners, they raise... maybe... a couple hundred thousand. When these corporate backers put their money in with Romney, it's millions of dollars. I think if there was a cap, for both parties, it keep things a little more even. And no individual shouldn't be able to donate more than a certain amount and no corporation should be able to donate, at all. Will the people who pay lawyers be able to find a loop hole? I'm sure they will, but we don't have to make it so easy for these politicians to be bought and paid for by corporations and special interest groups that could give two shits about middle class struggle.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Just a quick word on Citizens United

    by FluffyUnbound

    The Citizens United case has had almost no impact on campaign spending. All that the CU ruling did was permit for-profit corporations to engage in political activity using corporate funds. But very little such activity is actually occurring. The spending we're seeing this cycle OVERWHELMINGLY comes from special-purpose nonprofits set up specifically to engage in political activity. And that spending was already legal before the Citizens United ruling. In addition, the increase in special-purpose-entity spending this cycle has resulted in a greater number of candidates campaigning longer and more credibly than in any recent election cycle, particularly in primaries. Primary voters have had a greater range of credible candidates and longer and more informative campaign seasons than they have had for decades. In the GOP presidential nomination contest, for example, more voters got to participate in primaries and caucuses that were meaningful precisely because special-purpose-entity spending kept Gingrich and Santorum in the race longer than would have been the norm in recent history. How is that bad? How would it have been BETTER for the nomination process to be effectively over after New Hampshire, as it probably would have been in the past? I hate both of those SOBs, but lots of GOP primary voters got the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote for the candidate of their choice because they were in the race. I don't see how that's bad. So spare me the talk about the spectre of Citizens United, Nordling.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:56 a.m. CST

    when i went to see ted, they screened the trailer for this film twice

    by werewolfbynight

    thats a campaign.

  • Mitt the Ripper

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    fluffyunbound, you are truly a fool.

    by SergeantStedenko

    fluffy says,"The spending we're seeing this cycle OVERWHELMINGLY comes from special-purpose nonprofits set up specifically to engage in political activity." Where is that money coming from? It has to come from somewhere. It's coming from for-profit corporations, you moron! Of course, I don't blame you for not knowing that, because CU made such political bribes anonymous.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    It always cracks me up when Glen Beck's disciples attack George Soros.

    by SergeantStedenko

    As if your average liberal gives a $h*t about George Soros. The only person who gives a flying f*ck about George Soros is an emotionally disturbed anti-semite like Glen Beck and his mindless followers. No, unlike right wingers, us liberals don't worship the rich people on our side, nor bow to them like brainless peasants.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Why do people on the extreme right still think it's the 80's?

    by Andrew Coleman

    "Union thugs"... "Socialism"... Hating gays in general. It's very 80's. I would be worried or concerned about this very angry and crazy group of right wingers that have popped up but they will die off in like 30 years. The only people who are anti-union are super rich people who want the Chinese to have all the jobs and the mindless tools who have been tricked into thinking no jobs in America is a good thing. Look I understand that there are a lot of "colored" people around these days and that has scared the shit out of white people over 50... But really none of their points make any sense. Also I laugh at the support Romney gets from the crazy rightwingers... He's more "liberal" than Obama haha. Just because he calls himself a Republican doesn't mean he really is one... Don't forget he's Mormon and doesn't believe in your general Jesus loving stuff. He's a hardcore Mormon and they support welfare... Whoops. He also laid the groundwork for "Obamacare" that for some reason scared every old white person in the midwest. Just stop with this bullshit it's so 80's... Gays will eventually get married... There will be more "colored" people then generic whites. Just get over it. Oh and this movie looks funny. Seeing Bourne Legacy before it but I'll check it out.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST

    @myphdisdoom

    by Chris

    Because the same old people those fears were designed to illicit a response from in the 1980s are still alive and voting today. You have the Right that wants to bring back family values, morals, et cetera, only they're just saying that so some old bastard will vote them in. When they were in power they were no more ethical than you'd expect from a politician. Meanwhile the Left promises the hippies and Liberals some sort've peace loving, Socialist utopia, only they're promising peace and intelligence and accountability just so someone will elect them. They're no more ethical than those on the Right. The United States, along with the rest of the world, is fucked. We're too far under the yoke of banks and big business to do anything now that will fix things short of armed insurrection. It's all going to go down in flames.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Go easy on the rightwingers in this TB...

    by Mr. Anderson

    they're stuck with Mitt Romney as their nominee, the poor bastards. I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again this year even though I have quite a few problems with the guy, but MY GOD, I can't even fathom what it must be like to have to pretend to be excited by Mitt Romney. I'd be pissed off too.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    daddylonghead - Yes, defeated by technology...

    by GunRunner

    ...Not your lame ass retorts. I just read that the coal miner's union is sitting out this election. It seems even some union thugs are sick and tired of the Obama disaster.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST

    myphdisdoom - No one is anti-union...

    by GunRunner

    Collective bargaining for private sector employees is part of the 1st Amendment freedom of association. Public sector unions? No; even FDR was against those. What I am against is the government/labor complex, compulsory union membership, dues, and all of the other corruptive measures that the left supports. I'm against union violence, and the corrupt union leadership (like Dick Trumka) who loot real hard working union members so they can live the high life. I didn't mention anything about minorities or gays, but I do like your original idea of calling people who are against Obama's policies racist. I've never heard that one before. And what is a "generic white"?

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Most Republicans are closeted gays. That's why they're such homophobes.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    I try to pity them, but they're so ugly in their hatred.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    queefer sutherland - Most Obama supporters...

    by GunRunner

    ...are on welfare. That's why they suck at the government teet so much. Considering that gay Americans statistically are much more successful financially than their hetero counterparts, you might be on to something. I'll take being called gay over being an actual freeloader.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:36 p.m. CST

    sergeantstedenko, you don't know what you're talking about

    by FluffyUnbound

    Corporations could already make contributions to SuperPACs. If your concern is that corporations might donate money to intermediary organizations that would seek to influence political campaigns, THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE prior to Citizens United. And the overwhelming majority of money going to 501(c)4's and SuperPACs is coming from individuals anyway, even now. Hell, Sheldon Adelson's personal checks probably outweigh all Fortune 500 direct corporate donations to either type of body.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 7:47 p.m. CST

    gunrunner, you're a dumbass

    by Queefer Sutherland

    You assume I'm an Obama supporter just because I take a dig at republicans. That only shows your ignorance. You have a tiny mind. Obama is a charlatan, just like his counterpart, Mitt Romney. Neither man has our interest at heart, and if you believe otherwise it is only another sign of your epic stupidity.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    queefer sutherland - You need better reading skills...

    by GunRunner

    I never said that you were an Obama supporter. Not even close. I only made an observation about Obama supporters, as you did about "most Republicans" being gay. So, work on your reading comprehension before you accuse others of "epic stupidity".

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:17 p.m. CST

    gunrunner - I said "if" - so you need to improve your own reading skills.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    But since your comment was directed at me, I'm sure you can see how I inferred you were accusing me of being an Obama supporter. Well, maybe you can't see it. Maybe your ignorance IS indeed epic.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Wrong again...

    by GunRunner

    The "if" is irrelevant since you said it would be "only another sign of your epic stupidity", alluding to the fact that there are other signs. But I'm not really interested in giving you a grammar lesson. I'll just say that I agree that neither candidate "has our interests at heart". But why would one expect that from a politician? At least Romney voters know what he is, and won't be the victim of the Greatest Political Dupe of All Time, like Obama's '08 voters were.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Now all the buddies are fighting, fighting, fighting

    by ajit maholtra

    Always fighting, fighting, fighting.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Wow, proof that your ignorance IS epic.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    You think Romney is showing who he really is?!?!?!? Damn, man, what is your budget for drool bibs? It must be astronomical.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Um, no...

    by GunRunner

    Your reading comprehension can't be THIS bad. I said that Romney VOTERS know what he really is, not that's he's representing himself truthfully. So quick, how are you going to misread this post? Can't wait to see it.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST

    ajit_maholtra, this is not fighting

    by Queefer Sutherland

    This is fun.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Oh please, Gunny, you know what you said.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    At least Romney voters know what he is...

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Finally, you got it!

    by GunRunner

    At least Romney voters know what he is...

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Sorry, my dog nudged my keyboard.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    To continue... Your comment implied empiricism. Otherwise you would have said "what he pretends to be..."

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Finally, you got it!

    by GunRunner

    At least Romney voters know what he is...Yes, they know he's a bullshit artist, just like every politician.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Anyway, I don't know why I'm arguing semantics with an idiot manchild

    by Queefer Sutherland

    This is beneath me. I've already proven you to be a fool. You just can't see it through your thick veil of idiocy.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:43 p.m. CST

    No...

    by GunRunner

    ...there's plenty of empirical evidence that he's a bullshit artist. They see through what he pretends to be.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:45 p.m. CST

    You've proven that you have no reading comprehension...

    by GunRunner

    ...and that you don't know what empiricism is. So good luck with your sexual orientation prognostication skills. Most Republicans are closeted gays? I take it you're speaking from your pillow talk experience with them. Thanks for the fun, Dr. Dipshit.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Look, if you really believe Romney to be a bullshit artist

    by Queefer Sutherland

    then we actually have no argument. If we both believe Obama and Romney to be corrupt, why are we fighting over phraseology?

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    I have absolutely no idea...

    by GunRunner

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Seriously, maybe you have a need to appear to be the winner here...

    by Queefer Sutherland

    ...but I would hope you're not that insecure.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Shall we kiss and make up?

    by Queefer Sutherland

    ;-)

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Oops, must have scared him away.

    by Queefer Sutherland

    I WIN! See you all later.

  • Aug. 9, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Here's something you can disagree with me on...

    by GunRunner

    While both candidates are lying politicians, the fact is that the taxes collected from Romney voters pay for the welfare payments of Obama voters. True or false?

  • So, no, I don't agree with you.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    fluffy, you are right about one thing

    by SergeantStedenko

    Rich individuals who have so much money they can just throw it away on attack ads are as much of a problem as big corporations. Too me the amount of money that these people have to spend on this election is proof alone that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. Greed is the number one problem in this country, right now. Not the working poor who are just trying to get by and put food on their tables to feed their children. Greed is what led to the financial collapse. And greed is what is keeping us from getting back on track. As someone wise once said, "The love of money is the root of all evil." I'm not saying all rich people are evil. Or even that money is a bad thing. What I am saying, in contradiction to what a not so wise fictional character once said, "Greed is not good!"

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 9:49 a.m. CST

    That's actually not the case...

    by GunRunner

    The majority of welfare recipients are not white, but black and hispanic. It's about 39% white, 40% black, and around 18% Hispanic. Here's another one: The expansion of government power, specifically at the federal level, represents a general, overall degradation of liberty. True or false?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Greed

    by GunRunner

    Greed is not wanting to hold on to what you have and make more of it. Greed is wanting the government to take from others and give it to you.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 9:51 a.m. CST

    The rich and taxes...

    by GunRunner

    What should be the top marginal rate? Right now it is 35%, and that doesn't include the payroll tax or any state/local taxes.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:02 a.m. CST

    gunrunner

    by SergeantStedenko

    I think we should return to the progressive tax rates of the Reagan Era at the very least. Not sure the exact number, but at I think it was at least 50% for the top earners. We also need to tax income from capital gains at the same rate as other income, because it IS income. The financial crisis proved that we need more regulation of Wall St. and banking not less. We've seen time and again what greed does when they are left to their own devices. Expansion of government is the least of our problems. It wasn't the government that nearly destroyed the entire world's economy. The government is accountable to WE THE PEOPLE. Corporations and Wall St. are only accountable to their share holders. And profit, often at the expense of everything else, i.e greed, is the only thing that matters to them.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:10 a.m. CST

    gunrunner, here's an excellent article on the problems of libertarian thought:

    by SergeantStedenko

    I'm assuming your more of a libertarian than a Bible thumping Right Winger. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/libertarian-con-favorite-rebel-ideology-ruling-class

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Oh, wow...

    by GunRunner

    That was a mouthfull. So your solution to in a financial crisis would be to double taxation on investment income. OK. Is that going to make people invest more or less? I can't believe that in a near financial meltdown, there are people out there who want to take the cap gains rate from 15% to 35% (or even higher). That is absolute, total, and complete idiocy. I still can't get over the income tax as a concept. Transaction and consumption taxes I think are necessary and responsible, but an income tax is just indentured servitude. I think it's immoral to force someone to work for the government as a condition of simply having a job. That's the problem with decades and decades of people growing up on the government dole. They do not associate freedom and liberty with actual freedom and liberty. They see cutting the Washington behemoth as a threat to their financial stability. And this is true of corporate welfare kings as well as individuals.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Why would I read this?

    by GunRunner

    So, you want me to read an article on a leftist website that insults libertarianism? Why would I waste my time doing that? People who support freedom and liberty are chastised, insulted, and marginalized all day from all sides. I don't need to go to AlterNet to hear it. Maybe if you broke away from reading one side of something, you'd learn more.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Will Ferrells Black Left Hand

    by FrodrikFronkunsteen

    What's up with Will Ferrell's left hand being black in the poster?

  • Other than a few small government grants for college and the one time I applied and thankfully received Emergency Medicare for when I was sent to the hospital by a group of teens who jumped me to mug me, I have never been on the government dole. I believe in a small effective government that represents all of it's people not just the top 2%. I believe that if government provided or enabled universal healthcare, that this alone would probably make all other welfare unnecessary. There are people who want to work, but will not because they will lose their Medicare for their families if they do. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but taking the profit motive out of providing healthcare would actually solve the problem of increasing healthcare costs. Transaction and consumption taxes are unfair to the working poor. The price of bread is the same for the trust fund baby as it is for the person struggling to feed their family on a Minimum wage.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Oh God, I knew I shouldn't have bitten...

    by GunRunner

    -"Despite what Ron Paul’s trolls might have you believe, gold Krugerrands don’t spray out your asshole every time you type up a spreadsheet or pour a Grande mochachino for your next customer." Seriously? No wonder you don't like libertarianism. You've been reading drivel like this.

  • You are being hypocritical by claiming that I need to read other opinions while saying that you are unwilling to do the same. What are you afraid will happen if you read that article? I actually do agree with a lot of things that libertarians believe, like legalizing drugs, ending neo-imperial wars and and closing our Military bases overseas. Where I part ways, is this mystical belief in the "Free Market" as if capitalism was ordained by God himself. Capitalism just happens to be the most effective economic system so far.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Universal Healthcare" is not "small effective government

    by GunRunner

    You can't take the profit motive out of health care, because doctors, nurses, and surgeons don't work for free. Health care is not a right; it is a product and a service. Medications, rubber gloves, and hospital beds don't magically appear out of nowhere. They have to be manufactured, and doctors have to be paid. Taxation being "unfair to the working poor" is another con. Consumption taxes hit the rich because the rich "consume" more. The income tax is immoral and should be abolished, but we'd need a Constitutionally sized government first.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    gunrunner

    by SergeantStedenko

    I just happened upon that article the other day. It is in no way reflective of my personal views. But, despite the writer's ideological bent, I do think that there are some good points in there. I just think the idea that government is evil is just as limiting as believing that government can solve all our problems.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I'm not talking about the profit motive for the "actual" heathcare providers

    by SergeantStedenko

    I'm talking about the healthcare insurance industry. Also, I do believe that heathcare is a right. I sure hope you're not anti-abortion, because if so, it is hypocritical to force someone to give birth to a baby they can't afford and then say that it is ok if that child dies because they don't have a right to the healtcare necessary to keep it alive.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I'm not afraid of anything...

    by GunRunner

    ...I just don't understand what your agenda is with showing me such a contrived boilerplate article with such lines as "So whenever a libertarian says that capitalism is at odds with the state, laugh at him." It's like you said, "Oh, you're a libertarian? Well here's an article from a pro-big government website that says libertarians are idiots and calls them names. Take that!" What exactly is your argument? Should I sent you to a Reason magazine article that says that people who worship big government control are idiots? I don't need to. I have my own point of view.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    ,"Consumption taxes hit the rich because the rich "consume" more."

    by SergeantStedenko

    This is just proof of how out of touch your ideology is with the condition that many people find themselves in. I'm talking about just being able to buy food and provide shelter for yourself and your family. And your comparing that to people buying yachts and diamond jewelry.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    You'll have to summarize the good points...

    by GunRunner

    ...because I couldn't find any. He insults Nick Gillespie's wardrobe in the first few paragraphs, and then goes on to show that he's probably never listened to or read anything Gillespie has published. It's like me making fun of Ralph Nader's lazy eye. It's not an argument, but a meaningless insult.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    I am Will Ferrell's black left hand

    by FrodrikFronkunsteen

    Did anyone else notice this? Go post your political bulls--t over at drudge or huffington. This ain't cool news.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:26 a.m. CST

    I have no problem with the state taking care of babies...

    by GunRunner

    What I do have a problem with is the state subsidizing people to have children when they can't afford them, and allowing people to escape responsibility for their own existence by making them dependent on government. That's the difference. I see you as someone who thinks it's a good thing when the rate of people on food stamps goes up, since to you that represents more people eating. Whereas I think it's a good thing when less people need food stamps and by extension aren't reliant on the government to survive. Health care can only be a right if one has the right to other people's time and labor, uncompensated. Since everyone has the right go be compensated for their labor, in this case doctors, nurses, and manufacturers, health care is not a right. You don't have the right to demand that people work for you for free.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Food and commodities have taxes built into them...

    by GunRunner

    If you quit taxing the bread manufacturers, bread will be cheaper and the consumption tax is basically a wash. Yachts, cars, mansions, and even jewelry employ people. Who do you think builds the prop shafts and minibars on a yacht? Your ideology of government control is what has gotten us here. You don't actually think that the US is a libertarian free market, do you?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    It would makes sense for you...

    by GunRunner

    ...to maybe read something from Nick Gillespie, since you've already taken the time to read an article that insults him ad hominem. You should also take into account that most libertarians have no problems, Constitutionally, with the government providing these things at the state level. You want to have gun control and universal health care like in Massachusetts? Fine. You want to ban salt shakers, trans fats, and Big Gulps like in New York? Fine. I can easily (and do) choose to live somewhere else where the government is not a nanny who's expected to take care of everybody.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    gunrunner, we tried the libertarian free market back in the Guilded Age

    by SergeantStedenko

    Didn't work out so well for the working class. Child labor and all.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    That was not true free market capitalism...

    by GunRunner

    This "we've already tried freedom" argument is getting old. On the contrary, the Gilded Age was a time of crony capitalism, government meddling, and nepotism. The Progressive Era that followed was even worse, as it gave us Prohibition and the Great Depression. So in reality (just like now), the solutions are worse than the problems.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST

    ,"This "we've already tried freedom" argument is getting old."

    by SergeantStedenko

    How is capitalism freedom, exactly? Not talking economics, now, but philosophically. Capitalism is based on the idea of property. The idea that a person can own a piece of reality, be it land, etc. When a baby is born into the world it knows not of capitalism, property, money. It is essentially free. but it is then taught that you can't have something or go somewhere because it does not belong to you. You are further taught that if you don't sell your time to another person in exchange for symbolic pieces of paper which allow you to do basic things like eat, rent an apartment, etc, that you will die on the street. You are further taught that not everyone was born equal and that some people have more property and symbolic papers than others. And therefore these people have more power and can get you to do things for them to make them even wealthier and even more powerful. Where is the freedom in any of this. Is this not kind of similar to the indentured servitude you lament?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Good question...

    by GunRunner

    You're incorrect about capitalism being based on property. It is vased on value. Property and money are nothing but representations of value. A capitalist economy, a true one, is based on the free exchange of value between willing parties. Do you know how to calculate the value of something?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Well, money is representative of value

    by SergeantStedenko

    property is claiming that you own a piece of reality. The first apeman that claimed an apple tree to be his and promised other apemen he'd share his apples with them if they helped him defend it. Plus, are you truly a willing party if you have to work for someone or you will starve to death? Having any preordained system in place, including capitalism, is already limiting your freedom.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 12:59 p.m. CST

    more whites are on welfare than blacks and latinos

    by Oprah_Duke

    Let's not play the percentage game and look at the raw numbers.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    You're against property ownership?

    by GunRunner

    Wow, I don't even know where to begin. Your argument seems to be not with capitalism but the nature of the universe. No, I don't see the laws of nature or the laws of physics as limiting my freedom. If I'm a caveman sitting a mile away from a water hole, wishing that the water hole would come to me might be a nice thought, but it's not going to do anything. I'm going to have to get up and expend the effort, energy, and calories to walk to get it. If I think that I "should" only have to walk half mile, because walking a whole mile is bullshit and "not fair", it doesn't matter. Complaining about the fact that living things must expend effort to survive is like shaking your fist at the sun because it's hot. It might make you feel better but it doesn't do any good. People have to create value in order to obtain things of value. Capitalism is only a system to make it as free and fair as possible. Anything else is authoritarianism.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    oprah_duke - You might be right if you count SS as welfare...

    by GunRunner

    ...but since people paid into those systems and are paid out based on their "contributions", I certainly wouldn't. The 2009 TANF numbers show: White: 31.2% Black: 33.3% Latino: 28.8% So no, more whites are not on welfare than blacks and latinos if you combine them, and are only slightly more than Latinos compared directly. Whites are certainly not "the majority" as sergeantstedenko said.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Link to the report

    by GunRunner

    - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport9/9th_report-to-congress_3-26-12.pdf - Page 72 of TANF's report to Congress in 2012.

  • It's interesting how you equate property with a physical activity or work. Do you not see that that is a philosophical leap on your part. So, what you are saying is that the first caveman who claimed a cave then took ownership of it because he exerted the effort to walk over to the cave and then was subsequently able to defend it. That is all fine and good, but we now have a system in place, in which the land has long been divided up along with it's natural resources. To a baby newly born into this world where is any of this freedom you speak of?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Well, I'm not equating them...

    by GunRunner

    ...but they are connected. It's not a leap at all to make the connection; it's just a fact. Physical activity, work, inventing, etc. are all ways of creating value. When you create value you can exchange that value for property or services. It sounds like a beginner's economics class or book might help you out a little bit. These aren't complicated ideas. -"now have a system in place, in which the land has long been divided up along with it's natural resources."- Well actually, most of the land (at least in this country) is owned by the federal government. So perhaps we're much closer to your point of view than mine. Government ownership is, in theory, supposed to be collective, or "public" ownership. But in reality, when everybody owns something, nobody owns it. The baby has the freedom to produce value and use that value to exchange for his/her own property. Is somebody just supposed to give it to them? I guess I just don't know where you're going with this. I rarely find myself debating babies and cavemen when discussing capitalism. If nobody could own land (government included), how could you possibly build a coherent society?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    gunrunner, I understand the precepts of capitalism

    by SergeantStedenko

    I'm just trying to have a philosophical discussion about "freedom" and how capitalism relates to freedom. You seem to equate capitalism with freedom. For me freedom is more a state of mind than it is a physical condition in the world. All I know is I was born into the world to a lower Middle Class family with very little money. It was made clear to me early on that you had to get a job and work for someone else or I would not survive. I was not free to simply walk 20 feet from my house and pick fruit from the tree there to feed myself, because that property belonged to my neighbor. I couldn't even pitch a tent in the woods and hunt and fish for my own food, because the land even though public was off limits to live in. Also, I needed to pay for a license to hunt and fish and I needed a place of residence to even have the right to get a license to hunt and fish. So, I decided to go to college to educate myself so that I could get a better job where I would receive more money in exchange for my time and work. Where is the freedom in all of this? And how is forcing people to play by the rules of capitalism freedom?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    The Alternative...

    by GunRunner

    I guess I don't really understand the alternative. Maybe you can help explain it. Even communists have to get up and plow the field and milk the cow. I'm certain that I'm wrong here, bit it sounds like freedom to you means doing what you want, all the time without consequences. The fact that you have to work (or provide value in some way) in order to eat and live isn't really forcing you to "play by the rules of capitalism", but instead forcing you to play by the rules of the natural world. Humans aren't the only animals that have to labor to survive; everything does. If a lion sits on his hairy ass all day and doesn't get up to chase an antelope every day or two, then yeah, he'll starve. It seems your argument is with the natural world, not capitalism. Unless you can give me an idea of what type of system is more free but at the same time non-compulsory.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    More to the point...

    by GunRunner

    What would more freedom look like to you? I define freedom as individuals seeking their own self interest and determining the course of their own lives, with the only caveat being that that pursuit does not infringe on the freedom of others.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    One More Question...

    by GunRunner

    If private property, as you say, diminishes freedom, then by extension one must assume that abolishing private property would mean "more" freedom. Can you explain how that would work? Where would I build a house for my family if no one owns the property for me to purchase and build on. What specifically would a world without property ownership look like? Where would my wife, son, and I sleep if nobody owned any property? Anywhere we want?

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 7:58 p.m. CST

    Every freaking showing SOLD OUT! DAMMIT!

    by adeceasedfan

    I hates waiting. Actually kinda surprised, but this is NC.

  • If Capitalism is so damn wrong, what is the alternative? Tell me, enlighten, educate me? You damn Socialists never give up...

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Don't waste your money

    by FrodrikFronkunsteen

    This movie could have been great but it just fell flat for me. However, if you're a lefty you'll probably love it.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Gunrunner

    by SergeantStedenko

    Civilizarion was built from farming and the ability to store grain. The feudal system originated from wralthy landowners who accumulated the grain. they eventually became the kings who ruled over the lands. wWe eventually replaced monarchy with democratically elected republics which grew out of a strong merchantile class. Unfortunately we have replaced monarchy and aristocracy with an oligarchy where we have representatives elected by the people who only do the bidding of their wealthy donors be they rich individuals or multinational corporations. Wealth is being redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 2% as never before in recent history. What all you free market economic geniuses fail to realize is that we cannot have a stable economy if all the wealth is accumulated in the hands of only a few. Really shocked that wralthy business owners don't get that is the majority of the people, i.e. their costomers don't have money to spend on their products, that doesn't help them. Greed really bites itself in the ass.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Wow, have you been drinking?

    by GunRunner

    That was some interesting grammar there. So how would you structure an economy, and how would you hinder wealth accumulation?

  • A strong, robust economy would eliminate that... those that WANT to work, have the opportunity to do it. The American dream is out there, I've witnessed it first hand.... You know what would bridge that gap with complete fairness if college was paid for. An education is slowly becoming only available for the rich... it must be stopped, but it's not there yet so take advantage! My boss, at 40 y/o put himself through lawschool and just recently graduated. His wife, already a lawyer sold their pizza business and went to law school a decade earlier, all while rising 6 kids. People need to do three things in this life to make it work: Stay the fuck away from drugs, booze and all the shit that drags a body down....it's wasteful and dumb in every single way... NO EXCUSES! Work hard...find a goal, head to towards it and work your ass off, it will happen. NO EXCUSES! Take advantage of your education, if you have one, use it, if you don't get one... and honestly, if your not white you have more opportunities than anyone, (even if you are a convict).... I plan to start school again in the spring for my second Bachelors then towards a Masters.... NO EXCUSES! STOP with the negativity, folks. Life in America is only as hard/bad/sucky as you allow it to be... GOD BLESS AMERICA!

  • Aug. 11, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Wealth distribution...

    by Dan

    Won't work, shouldn't even be an option since a lot of people make it their goal in life not to work. I seen plenty of people do it. If you don't accomplish your goals, most of it is your fault.

  • You've heard the stories over the generations of arriving to this country, illiterate and with only a few bucks in their pockets... what's the new excuse today?

  • start from the bottom, standardized testing is flawed beyond belief, always mislabeling and mis-everything to kids who might either have ADD, dislexic or just bored... their lives ruined thinking they are too stupid to go to college.... College is way too expensive for everyone! I am for the government footing the bill. If the Dems are really for better education for all, they'd take this mantra and sing it from the rooftops...I'd much rather have money for SS aimed at this instead. If everyone makes decent money, SS is rendered unnecessary. It's not s socialism its common sense to want the best for the populace who wants it. Because even if it was free, there would still be plenty of idiots who would not take it....but the vast majority would and the economy would boom for generations to come. I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp but it seems I have some better ideas than the ones deemed smarter than you and me.