By dsrobins on 11-03-09
Ex-senator Burns is entitled to his opinion even though it is wrong. One thing is certain, Conrad Burns was as corrupt and dishonest as any senator we’ve ever had.
By Billy on 11-03-09
You can attack Burns all you want and I wouldn’t stop you from getting specific but if the question is; Is Barack H. Obama pushing a socialist agenda?
I would say yes,
A Soviet States of America, with funded idealists subverting and infiltrating every agency.
I am not defending the status quo either but when the SHTF, those of us who want a different kind of change need to be prepared to effect our policy.
By woody on 11-03-09
if you erroneously claim that the old ruskies were socialist we have to take anything else you say w/ a large grain of salt…..
the ruskies were communist….just like china…..elites at the top ruling every aspect of society…..
socialism is when you do something for the masses…....
there’s nothing about the masses in the obama administration….
if anything he is simply continuing the corporate communist ruling agenda started by reagan and amped up under shrub bush…...
there is nothing socialist about obama….
get your ideologies correct…..and your answer is simply to give MORE power to the corporations and the ultra-wealthy to further pervert the country into a 3rd world nation
it’s time to tax the rich freeloaders who have ruined the country…...
they pay a way smaller tax rate than the rest of us….they use way more of the commons than the rest of us
and they create NOTHING OF VALUE
basically the rich are a bunch of vampires on the economy and the country…....
that’s why the rich were taxed at 90% from the 1930’s until reagan revolution of robin hood for the rich…..and now we live w/ the results being the sellout of the country to the corporations
and these geniuses on the right say it’s the average America’s fault for wanting some basic protections guaranteed for us in the constitution…..
which by the way while talking about WE THE PEOPLE extensively makes no mention of the corporation - a legal maneuver that was created just to allow the rich to avoid liability
By Scott on 11-03-09
“It’s time to tax the rich freeloaders….they pay a smaller tax rate than the rest of us”.
Woody, I am sorry that you are ignorant. Please take a look at the website below. You can also verify these numbers at IRS.GOV(the agency responsible for collecting taxes in this nation.)
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
By Billy on 11-03-09
Woody; “your answer is simply to give MORE power to the corporations and the ultra-wealthy to further pervert the country into a 3rd world nation” NOT ME.
I agree with most of what and I am not a student of political ideologies. Lets just review the knowns.
The elite rulerships control in America goes back before Reagan.
The thieves have collected their money. The government has never been able to get to Fat Pigs treasure because the Big Pigs dictate legistation with loopholes just for themselves.
The bills that congress passes require thousands of lawyers to create and understand. I would rather see them reverse that trend but fat hope.
The elite provide the financing to disrupt and enslave the majority. Blind idealists and corrupt politicians are duped into providing the manpower.
Reagan was a dupe for General Electric. If you can remember the push for Ready Kilowatt and the all electric home from the Ozzie and Harriet era.
Government control of health care is stupid.
Have you read about the latest in Medicare Fraud?
By dmgold on 11-03-09
So, Conrad, the President who approved a multi-billion dollar bailout for Wall Street, and appointed uber-capitalists, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to his Cabinet is a socialist? Get real.
By kalispelling bee on 11-03-09
dsrobins, ahh, so Burns does have a claim to fame.
I couldn’t agree more. I have as much interest in hearing what Conrad Burns thinks about government as I have in learning what flavor of ice cream Bernie Madoff enjoys.
By JB on 11-04-09
“There is nothing socialist about Obama”??????
Now I really know that woody has gone off the deep end…
He’s can’t even name one thing that Obama has done right…the bailout? Cash for clunkers? Health care? Cap and trade? Foreign policy?
All he has done is spend taxpayer money - that same money that both hardworking Americans and rich Americans have paid in - and done nothing except put this nation further in debt, making the dollar even more toxic and sending us further down that road to economic collapse.
During his trip to Europe, Obama was asked about his unwillingness to discuss American exceptionalism. He responded by saying that he believes in American exceptionalism in the same way that the British believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. In other words, he believes that the US is not any different from any other country on earth. That is certainly reflected in his domestic policy.
Burns may be as crooked as the day is long, but he’s right on the money about Obama.
By FightOrFlight on 11-04-09
Every person who notes another persons plight, whether economic, medical or otherwise; and cares enough to try and do something about it is a socialist.
In government, it’s whole basis is socialistic from the framers’ Constitutional level. (Read the document: “provide for the common welfare” and common defense.)
America is Republic and if you insert Socialist before, the Soviets share that moniker, not that it means anything except that their social experiment was hijacked by thugs and demagogues who ransacked it from the established nobility of the time with promises of social equality to the poor to get them on board with the concept. Then as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely and we have another revolution on the worlds hands.
Perhaps that is where we are headed.
But will the next revolution be lead by the middle class or the poor?
By Billy on 11-04-09
Thanks for the definition of socialist FlightOrFight. It’s a little more clear now.
So the Soviet Socialist Republic was actually not for the good of common people,
and the National Socialists in Germany were actually not for the good of the common people,
I wonder if Obama Socialism is for the good of common people, or is B.H.Obama feeding the common people bull crap?
Perhaps these labels are normally a cover for something else.
By Billy on 11-04-09
This is a little off topic but Makow adds a little insight into the heart and mind of the oppressor and social engineering.
Feminism is Key to the “Making of a Slave”
http://www.henrymakow.com/feminism_is_key_to_making_of_a.html
By wouldb1 on 11-04-09
Would the disgraced Mr. Burns label ag subsidies as “socialist”? He was supportive of these programs throughout his extinguished career.
By Vud on 11-04-09
Yep, Those BE Socialist…
...and it’s Fun to see just who cry’s “Socialism” and who feeds at the trough:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=30029
By wouldb1 on 11-05-09
Thanks for the link Vud. Gee, a Republican state senator near the top of the list for subsidies in Flathead County - shocking.
By Vud on 11-05-09
Woudb1:
Yeah, I (almost) consider that link playing ‘dirty pool’ (though NOT when it comes to public officials).
I consider it more of a mirror.
I know a lot of old farmers out there who are jumping on the ‘Obama as Socialist’ bandwagon and yet they have recieved 10’s if not 100’s of thousands in subsidies over the years…often for NOT growing crops.
I don’t mind avarice so much as BLIND avarice.
By Vud on 11-05-09
KSB:
i b4 e ...
By senator blutarski on 11-05-09
Burns was an embarrassment for years with his antics and ,for me, he has no credibility. It seems that in today’s political climate if you don’t agree with something the usual response is ‘socialism’ or ‘fascism’ without any real discussion of the issue involved.
By FightOrFlight on 11-06-09
Burns was a hay seed who got ground up with big wheels of the giant government mill destiny.
As much as we would like to discuss Burns, sans all politicians, in the eye glass of moral scrutiny, Burns was a leader in our mixed economy, therefore it is all but impossible to separate out the wheat or shaft of socialism in the conversation.
Fascism dementedly is the N word from American’s to our politicians when something is going down that we don’t like and have no other words or the intelligence to express.
By krypton on 11-07-09
Aren’t we really talking about a corporate oligarchy?
By FightOrFlight on 11-07-09
You could use “oligarchy”, I suppose. We elect by popular vote and really the corporations don’t cast any votes, although they spend a bucket load of their money on their favorite candidates campaigns and expect favors afterwards.
Once elected, the FEW really don’t govern in the US unless you consider governance by the two parties in power for the source of power and not the individual elected representatives… but that is a stretch of the definition.
By krypton on 11-07-09
Popular? I thought it was through the electoral college…I would love it if we elected through popular vote. My point is that the government is designed to serve corporate interests (the few), not the interests of the population. Further, the subtle (and sometimes not so) argument by those governing is that by serving corporate interests we serve the interests of the population (the people), thus leading to considerable confusion…
By woody on 11-07-09
the “rich” don’t provide the most employment….. that is a rightwing BS talking point. Most Americans work for small or medium sized companies NOT run by millionaires.
And the simple fact is the higher the tax on the wealthy (ie - those making over 3 million a year) the more stable the economy. That is historical fact.
Which is why every president from FDR to Carter kept the top tax rate well above 50%.
And why during that period we had the largest increase in the middle class the world has ever seen - and why we had NO BUBBLES!
Then reagan came in and cut taxes for the wealthiest and ushered in the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in the history of the country( 1. by lowering the income needed to hit the top tax rate, 2. by raising the income level subject to FICA from 30,000 to 95,000, 3. and then putting all the surplus FICA monies into the general gov fund)
- and just so you know Social Security STILL runs a surplus AND if reagan wouldn’t have done that Social Security would be totally funded into eternity) Which is why June 5th should be a NATIONAL HOLIDAY!
And the soviets were COMMUNIST not socialist!
Communist govs are top heavy where the very few control the entire gov and economy. WOW sounds like America. It’s basically an oligarchy - krypton is right.
the problem w/ the soviet model was that the leaders were mainly military leaders without a head for business.
Now the chinese model has solved that by importing American business leadership to help run the country - and the corporate leaders from America have said ” wa la - hey a new leadership model for AMERICA!”
there is nothing socialist about the commies or Obama - it is an oligarchy based on empire…...
Ever heard of thoreau?
By Billy on 11-07-09
I think corporations are defined as persons in a legal sense.flight or fight, is that true? And when did it change?
By woody on 11-07-09
FASCISM is defined as corporate rule of our government and it’s current usage was coined by Mussullini in 1930’s Italy when he joined up with Hitler.
google it!
America is WAY more fascist than it is socialist.
But in this here blog when we have the majority of the braindead rightwingers not even knowing who thoreau was it’s no wonder they fall for lies and zenophobic fearmongering…...
and reagans 1st assault as governor of California was on the education system - and the results are obvious when one dosn’t even know who thoreau was! A grand SUCCESS!
we might as well far into 3rd world status - we obviously are no smarter than a 3rd world. In factwe are even dumber than most 3rd world countries.
ever heard of Joe Hill?
By Billy on 11-07-09
Note: This Wikipedia entry deals with the legal concept legal person. There is an ongoing political debate and controversy in the United States ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_person
Not all organizations have legal personhood.
Legal personality refers to the ability of an organization to enter into legal transactions such as holding property or entering into debt. Some examples of legal persons include:
companies
cooperatives (co-ops)
corporations
corporations sole
estates of deceased persons
European economic interest groupings (EEIGs)
flow-through entities (FTEs)
limited liability companies
municipalities
natural persons
partnerships
political parties
political action committees (PACs)
sovereigns
Strawperson
states
temples, in some legal systems, have separate legal personality[7]
trade unions
trusts
ship or vessel
churches and religious denominations
___________________________________
I would guess we are strawpersons in the corporate sense.
By Billy on 11-07-09
I dreamed they shot Joe Hill Last night.
By Billy on 11-07-09
Woody; I thought the majority was so called liberals.
By Billy on 11-07-09
Have you read Lucas’ Big Trouble woody?
By krypton on 11-07-09
So, my point, fight or flight, is how would someone get elected if they weren’t rich (Michael Bloomberg, how did he make his money anyway?) or backed by corporate interests so they could pay for media coverage? Once elected, legislators are bombarded by lobbyists which is a very expensive process; and whose funding is paid for by whom? I suggest mostly corporations, although AARP has the largest lobby, admittedly. I am suggesting extreme (large, not small or medium) corporate involvement (financing leading to obligation) before and after election. The elections at the federal level are merely incidental social engineering. And lest we lose the thread, I am thinking of Conrad Burns every step of the way here…because the above has to do with the nature of corruption. Finally,I believe corporations are legally “individual entities” but not persons in the legal sense, and I could be wrong about that last…
By woody on 11-07-09
the majority on this blog are “liberals”?
1st you righties don’t know who thoreau was….
then brag about the death of a union guy who was executed for a crime he didn’t commit and the courts knew it….
and don’t know the difference between oligarchy, fascism, corporatism, socialsim and liberalism
wow! what a great education you all have!
if ignorance is bliss we have the happiest righties on the planet in Montana!
By krypton on 11-07-09
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Classic_Friendly_Fascism.html
By Billy on 11-07-09
woody; We might agree to use Gandhi’s Philisophy since he followed Thoreau.
What is the cause of the present chaos? It is exploitation, I will not say, of the weaker nations by the stronger, but of sister nations by sister nations. And my fundamental objection to machinery rests on the fact that it is machinery that has enabled these nations to exploit others. (SB, 64-65)
I would destroy that system today, if I had the power. I would use the most deadly weapons, if I believed that they would destroy it. I refrain only because the use of such weapons would only perpetuate the system, though it may destroy its present administrators. Those who seek to destroy men rather than manners, adopt the latter and become worse than those whom they destroy under the mistaken belief that the manners will die with the men. They do not know the root of the evil. (SB, 66)
By Billy on 11-07-09
woody you are delusional. I thought you could see past the Left wing/Right wing paradigm stuck between your eyes.
By Billy on 11-07-09
Woody; Who’s bragging about anything. You said non liberals didn’t knew who Joe Hill or Thoreau was. You are delusional. I would say most self labeled liberals who are looking for some one to hate are delusional.
By Billy on 11-07-09
Excuse me woody you said righties. Don’t call me a righty woody, you don’t know me and you paste labels from your delusion on anyone that disagrees with you. Why don’t you throw us some more titles from your library woody. Your’e starting to impress us.
By woody on 11-07-09
haven’t read that book….but what’s the point?
there’s as much evidence that says the business community killed gov stuenenberg…..and the guy who was convicted was an informer for the pinkertons…..the 1st of many privatized militia working for big business .......
and are you trying to say that more business and corporate leaders were killed than union members?
go ahead and clarify why you mentioned that book?
and joe hill for the uninformed was a union organizer(his real crime was wanting a living wage for americans), labor protester and songwriter…...one of the 1st in a long line of american folk-singing heroes that continued thru my namesake woody guthrie and on to bob dylan and to james mcmurtry .....
all enemies of corportists and fascists
as they sung, ” which side are you on?”
By woody on 11-07-09
corporations received “personhood” in the 188-‘s during a supreme court case about the monopolies of the railroads…....and it was not even a ruling but was stuck in the ruling as a side-note by one of the clerks…..a railroad executive…..
how can a corporation be a person when it can:
1 exist in multiple places at one time
2. own other corporations
3. have citizenship in multiple countries at the same time
4. dissolve itself and re-create itself any time it wants…..
corpoarationsare NOT “persons”
and the founding fathers would roll over in their graves to hear that garbage…...
corporate personhood is a rightie concept….....
and it turns money into free speech which in turn makes the more money you have = more political power…...exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want….....
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html
By krypton on 11-07-09
Woody, I have to disagree with you. I believe the Soviet people desired ideal communism, the great experiment, and it almost immediately devolved into fascism with the traditional paranoid control of the population. I don’t think fascism is corporate control, exactly, I think it is more like a government that nationalizes (or controls, is in charge of the operations of) all corporate interests. The corporations must please or accede to or meet the interests of the ruling party. I am suggesting that what we have in this country is the other way around: the government must accede to or please or protect the corporate interests.
By Billy on 11-07-09
The Pinkerton agency working for mining interests, as usual, tried to find out who bombed the former Idaho governer Stuenenburg at his home in Caldwell 1905, for his support in breaking the union strike in the Coeur D’Alene mines.The book researches the events from the strike to the trial of the bomber. Class Warfare
By krypton on 11-07-09
In addition, I want to point out that pure communism cannot exist as Marx would have had us believe. I don’t think old Karl thought it through…communist ideology, when implemented, always devolves into fascism. Hitler was fascist from the beginning, because that was what he promised the German people; that he would fix the severely depressed economy through his brand of government. Of course, he had to introduce eugenics as an additional fix…
By Billy on 11-07-09
Woody; You brought up Joe Hill Like none of us know about the plight of the workers and their families against big corporate interest . I am showing the Pinkertons and and other strike breakers working for the corporations are the ememy of the working man. Don’t attack me
By Billy on 11-07-09
Woody; If you are a Molly Maguire you will be labeled as a terrorist?Thats how the monied class accuses and divides the workers.
“Evidence that the Molly Maguires were responsible for coalfield crimes and kidnapping in the U.S. rests largely upon allegations of one powerful industrialist, and the testimony of one Pinkerton detective. Fellow prisoners also testified against the alleged Molly Maguires, but some believe these witnesses may have been coerced or bribed.”
By Billy on 11-07-09
Woody; It’s not right and left. The ######## rule from behind the left and right, and do your thinking for you.
Get off the left right paradigm. The ######## do this do divide us just like they are dividing by religion.
And you are perpetuating their paradigm by constantly briging it up.
Are you getting a grant from the HRN?
By FightOrFlight on 11-07-09
Holy Crap, I left for a minute and you two stuff the turkey here
Corporations can’t vote.
Electoral college elects Presidents not Congress.
The President does not govern… Congress does.
Obama did not get anointed King by Corporations’ donations to his campaign. Any theories suggesting Corporations run government is wrong. They buy pieces of legislation from representatives who need to be replaced for that consideration.
I like to dream up conspiracies too, but I have yet to find the SR71 land on the county road in the Yaak: Yuck Yuck
By krypton on 11-07-09
Lol, fight or flight, please back up your point about how corporations do not run government, or please respond to my points about how i think they do 
By woody on 11-07-09
1. fascism in it’s current use was coined by mussullini…..that is FACT2. the democrats are further to the right than the republicans were in the 1950’s 1960’s and 1970’s
so when I say right against left - just know I mean that the left doesn’t have a voice in government anymore…...
Obama has proven to be a rightie himself….just another trickle-down hack
Ralph Nader would be considered a leftie…..the corportists in the dlc do not count as lefties…..
so the right-left argument still applies BUT if we are strictly talking about rethugs vs demos then it doesn’t apply…..
to billy: i was only giving you grief when you said that obama was a socialist when hopefully you meant fascist…..if you simply mixed up your terms instead of equating them then apologies to you——i
AND I’m sorry but the american culture has no idea who joe hill is, and has no idea about the labor struggles that took place in the 1880’s to the 1910’s…... that history was stripped from the history books long ago…...
for cripes sakes….granny had never heard of Thoreau!
how do you grow up in America and not know that?!?!!!!
if you’re for the working man over the interests of the monied elite then you are a leftie…...since the civil war ANY GAINS that the working man has received in this country was at the hands of the democrats - no matter how big business and fascistic they are right now….......
since the civil war the republicans have been 100% for the rights of big business to profit over the rights of the working class…..
the term is “privatized profits and socialized losses”
or according to grover nordquist the NTU founder and reaganite ” we want to bankrupt government down to the point where we can drown it in the bathtub…..if we bankrupt the government it will not be able to stand up to the power of the corporation”......
and believe me China is the new model of capitalism - soon to be wecolmed to america….... it’s called corporate communism….aka fascism
By Vud on 11-07-09
...and Mao got a lot of his capitalist ideas from this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNhcOwhpR1E
By Billy on 11-07-09
Thanks woody; Appreciate the time taken to explain.
By dsrobins on 11-07-09
The origin of the word fascism actually dates back to ancient Rome. The word was originally “fasces,” which referred to the bundles of bound sticks carried by bodyguards who protected Roman Consuls, certain other high Roman officials, and victorious generals awaiting their triumphal march through Rome. Originally, the sticks may have been used to control unruly mobs in Rome’s earliest days. Later, axes were inserted into the stick bundles as a symbol of the power of government. When Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1923, long before Hitler in Germany, he seized upon the fasces and axes as a symbol of his party. The bundles of sticks symbolized the close-knit nature of society and the axes again the power of the state. The symbolism was adopted as a convenient nickname for his political movement, e.g., fascism. The Nazis in Germany subsequently borrowed these symbols and terms for their own national-socialist movement.
By mitch on 11-07-09
mooseberryinn, do you ever have anything upbeat or encouraging to say about anything? You are the most depressed, nastiest poster I’ve seen in a long time. You never really have anything of interest to say. Just nasty remarks. I don’t think I’ve ever read an honest opinion from you.
By kalispelling bee on 11-07-09
wow, dsrobins. You know your history. Gave you an enthusiastic thumbs up on that.
By FightOrFlight on 11-07-09
You want me to back up my point they don’t?
DOH! They just don’t.
Pong it back to you: name one corporation that actually “runs the government”? Thats a tall order. Or are you talking corporations that are created by the government to run stuff like Fanny or Freddie?
Or do you think General Dynamics runs the military and General Electric runs all the street lights or something?
Or do you have examples more sinister?
By dsrobins on 11-07-09
An example more sinister, albeit of somewhat reduced influence now. Halliburton whose former chairman was Dick Cheney and which paid him huge dividends throughout his term as vice president and still pays him now. Want another example?
By FightOrFlight on 11-08-09
The hypothesis was “corporations RUN government”.
I would say in this example, Chaney and Haliburton influenced each others economic position in life and had little influence actually running government. Maybe influenced a small part of the defense branch, but certainly did not give rise to the larger.
Wayne Saverud had a paint shop in Kalispell while he was in local government. If evidence showed Wayne personally had the best income years of his life because he had influence to make a deal to sell all the paint to the city during his term, would you say his paint shop RAN the government?
I would call the claim gross exaggeration, although if something illegal happened to cause Chaney, Halliburton or Saverud to profit illegally… that is what should be the subject of this debate because neither has nothing to do with the larger claim of corporations running government.
Influence is really the topic, yet if we all feel so helpless that we have lay such grandiose escalation of complaints, we need to cool our rhetoric and focus on reality.
By FightOrFlight on 11-08-09
I know BO is an easy and visible target, but the Democrats have been pushing government healthcare since before most of us were born.
Pretty easy to predict that what the rest of the world’s governments do for their people would be wanted by the under-served in this country. Good or bad, it is hard to stop a train that tracks for the benefit a majority party’s constituents.
By CJ on 11-08-09
BO is a puppet folks. And if you dont’ believe this is all about corporate takeover (One World Order) watch this “satire” that was another REALLY SCARY TRUTH:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884224/
By CJ on 11-08-09
Or how about government takeover right here in Kalispell:http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_d8cde54e-cc2d-11de-9ddd-001cc4c03286.html
By Billy on 11-08-09
cj; you are on it. Here is some good information on government takeover.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_b8de8500-cc2c-11de-adff-001cc4c03286.html
By woody on 11-08-09
mooseberry - yo’ve never ben right about anything on these blogs except grade school insults about “BO” -
it stopped being funny after the 2nd time…..but as w/ children they don’t realize that they sound stupid until they grow up and reach maturity…...
and we’re not holding out hope for that in your case….....grow up and write something half-way intelligent…...JUST ONCE!
health care is not ONLY about profits except to sociopaths who have zero empathy…..
i know some of those words have more than one syllable - google them and learn something!
By Vud on 11-08-09
Oh, I don’t know Woody…
I noticed mb has had 2 or 3 of his comments selected under the Off the Web : What You Read/What You Said column in the last couple ‘o months.
By krypton on 11-08-09
fight or flight, you were the one who introduced the statement “run the government”, lest you accuse me of rhetoricizing incorrectly. Further, to say “they just don’t” without substantiating your point seems rather irresponsible to me (and also laughable). Perhaps you could take a moment to review my posts. I stated, essentially, that I beleive our government is (currently) designed to serve/protect/please corporate (read also: multinational) interests before those of the populace.
By FightOrFlight on 11-08-09
I said, “Any theories suggesting Corporations run government is wrong.”
The phrase “Corporations run government” is laughable and not able to be substantiated.
Don’t know where you left the baby, in the bath or out with the water. :/
By krypton on 11-08-09
Sorry for your insecurities and inability to sustain an intelligent argument.
By FightOrFlight on 11-08-09
I’m not arguing,kraypton, but thanks for pointing out the echoing in your head by feigning remarks that are useless drivel.
By krypton on 11-08-09
Fight or flight, you just reinforced my point better than I ever could have done. I will let you have the last word.
By Billy on 11-08-09
Just passing it along.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6tTH4RQfA
By FightOrFlight on 11-09-09
Gee thanks Kryapton, thats my job to make people who come in the middle of a helpful and intelligent conversation and start railing about something 180 degrees off topic like you look good.
Is the sound off on your tv and you are listening to Glen Beck cry? We are not discussing General Hospital here. So I don’t see where you can offer diagnosis of blogers IQ or state of mind of posts you don’t quite understand to wit:
The government is not run by corporations, that is a blanket conspiracy statement. Government is influenced but not run.
If run equals influenced in your mind, then cows run farms.
No argument… just fact. Moooove on.
By Billy on 11-09-09
Who runs the gov. I thought this from UK was interesting.You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country.
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/11/truth-from-across-pond.html
By FightOrFlight on 11-09-09
Quasi, semi private consortiums consisting of government offices, boards or groups and citizen groups have long confounded many of us who cannot understand the grounds on which they can be and are established. It takes a law suit usually to get to the bottom of what ends up to a scheme to compete with the private sector’s providing of goods and services by these quasis. In the long run it burns up tax money chasing after saving money for those hoping a social solution to their needs.
By Billy on 11-09-09
VETERANS DAY IS COMING What do they think?
http://www.blinkx.com/video/us-soldier-exposes-iraq-war-secrets-and-lies/cjja9Xxh9HUxruemOF0VAQ
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.