Millions improperly got ObamaPhones - cost 2 billion dollars.

[OzmO]

How does this prove collusion?

I agree it may open the door to collusion but how does it prove it?

You dont think companies contribute to politicians to further their interests?

And what about the bailouts?

[tonymctones]

You dont think companies contribute to politicians to further their interests?

And what about the bailouts?

absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?

perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...

now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure

that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.

[24KT]

absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?

perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...

now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure

that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.

Hence the reason Jack T surmised the dole purpose of your head.      

Keep watching... see what happens when this shut down goes a few more days... See what Obama does.

You heard it here first... even though it keeps getting deleted, ...you heard it here first.

[OzmO]

absolutely I do, do I believe there is some conspiracy where the govt colludes with big business b/c of their contributions to screw the tax payers out of money?

perhaps with one or two specific politicians but the govt as a whole, no...

now is the govt inefficient, ignorant and flat out stupid in allowing big business to take advantage of their processes etc, sure

that doesnt mean there is collusion between the two.

So are you saying only 1 or 2 politicians efforts are influenced by big business?

[tonymctones]

So are you saying only 1 or 2 politicians efforts are influenced by big business?

Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.

Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.

The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.

[Dos Equis]

Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.

Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.

The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.

I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians.  Money rules.  If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician.  Not something you can always prove.  It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc.  Happens all the time.   

[tonymctones]

I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians.  Money rules.  If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician.  Not something you can always prove.  It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc.  Happens all the time.   

agreed but again this isnt collusion to screw tax payers.

if it is then there is collusion between the govt and its constituents as well seeing as their opinions of their representatives jobs show up in votes during election time so they are more apt to do what their constituents want.

[Dos Equis]

agreed but again this isnt collusion to screw tax payers.

if it is then there is collusion between the govt and its constituents as well seeing as their opinions of their representatives jobs show up in votes during election time so they are more apt to do what their constituents want.

Yeah, I don't think they collude to screw taxpayers. 

[OzmO]

Id say only a handful work in collusion with big business to screw the tax payer.

Ive asked for proof to the contrary and havent been given any.

The only one I can think of to be honest is obamacare, we are forced to by a product from a private entity. Other than that, name me some instances.

Off the top pf my head...

Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform

They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.

Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think  collusion is.

[bears]

Off the top pf my head...

Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform

They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.

Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think  collusion is.

right.  the problem is that collusion with corporate America can be very easily called something else.  Liberals say George Bush was "in bed with corporate America" with regards to his bailout..  In the same conversation they will say "Barack Obama saved the auto industry".  Both Presidents did the same thing, the people can simply choose to call it something else.

[OzmO]

right.  the problem is that collusion with corporate America can be very easily called something else.  Liberals say George Bush was "in bed with corporate America" with regards to his bailout..  In the same conversation they will say "Barack Obama saved the auto industry".  Both Presidents did the same thing, the people can simply choose to call it something else.

I agree.  So are they ALL in bed with corporate America?

I see form both sides a lack of representative government.

[Jack T. Cross]

I agree.  So are they ALL in bed with corporate America?

I see form both sides a lack of representative government.

bump

[Jack T. Cross]

I think big business influences a lot more than a handful of politicians.  Money rules.  If you look at the largest donors (whether business or individual) for a politician and the largest businesses in their district, those are likely to be the organizations and individuals that have the most influence on that politician.  Not something you can always prove.  It can be more subtle, in the form or increased air time (more meetings), certain pieces of legislation being supported or opposed, etc.  Happens all the time.   

No doubt. I'd say it has become the entire structure.

In the absence of a unified people, what else could possibly compete with it on a day-to-day basis?

[tonymctones]

Off the top pf my head...

Bush bails out the banks
Michelle Bachman votes yes to an additional 190 in bail out money
Amnesty, immigration reform

They are not colluding with a specific deliberate goal of screwing the tax payers, they are however influencing government to further their interests over the peoples.

Maybe we need to clarify what you and i think  collusion is.

id call it two individual entities run by seperate individuals or groups working together against the interest of the constituents

the bail outs while I may not agree with them were a necessary evil and in the end benefited the constituents
bachmann was involved on both groups colluding so it really wasnt collusion just one person using two entities to screw over the constituents

what business stand to benefit from amnesty?

are you of the mind that amnesty is bad for america?

[OzmO]

id call it two individual entities run by seperate individuals or groups working together against the interest of the constituents

the bail outs while I may not agree with them were a necessary evil and in the end benefited the constituents
bachmann was involved on both groups colluding so it really wasnt collusion just one person using two entities to screw over the constituents

what business stand to benefit from amnesty?

are you of the mind that amnesty is bad for america?

The immigrant thing really doesn't apply directly here as I just listed things off the top of my head without really thinking about it. However, some say, amnesty would be good for business as it increase home ownership, taxes, etc.

Not sure what you are saying about the rest.

As some have said in this thread.  Money rules.   Bachman and Bush went against their ideology and we the tax payers paid for it.

[Soul Crusher]

The immigrant thing really doesn't apply directly here as I just listed things off the top of my head without really thinking about it. However, some say, amnesty would be good for business as it increase home ownership, taxes, etc.

Not sure what you are saying about the rest.

As some have said in this thread.  Money rules.   Bachman and Bush went against their ideology and we the tax payers paid for it.

And Obama did the same fucking thing over and over and over and over and still the dummies can o ly bring up bush and Bachmann

[OzmO]

And Obama did the same fucking thing over and over and over and over and still the dummies can o ly bring up bush and Bachmann

He is expected too

[Jack T. Cross]

I just can't believe some of you guys.

How can it be good when an American is forced to compete with non-Americans - in America, mind you - in order to survive?

[Archer77]

I just can't believe some of you guys.

How can it be good when an American is forced to compete with non-Americans - in America, mind you - in order to survive?

Well said!  Why is it wrong to think of the welfare of your own family(country) over another?

[Jack T. Cross]

Well said!  Why is it wrong to think of the welfare of your own family(country) over another?

I can't imagine what legitimate circumstances would cause an American to feel it's okay to force other Americans to compete in such a way - in their OWN country.

Something's not right. Can't wait to get an explanation.

[tonymctones]

I can't imagine what legitimate circumstances would cause an American to feel it's okay to force other Americans to compete in such a way - in their OWN country.

Something's not right. Can't wait to get an explanation.

so youre against immigration and amnesty then jack?

and nobody said it was ok for an american to compete with "non americans" in america.

The question was if he though amnesty was bad for the america?
 
dumb ass

[Jack T. Cross]

so youre against immigration and amnesty then jack?

and nobody said it was ok for an american to compete with "non americans" in america.

The question was if he though amnesty was bad for the america?
 
dumb ass

I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.

Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?

(See, this is where your corporate cocksucking gets you into trouble. Because now you're forced to explain yourself in a way that doesn't seem like you've got a giant, anti-American dick in your mouth. Good luck with that.)

[tonymctones]

I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.

Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?

(See, this is where your corporate cocksucking gets you into trouble. Because now you're forced to explain yourself in a way that doesn't seem like you've got a giant, anti-American dick in your mouth. Good luck with that.)

did I moron? please quote where I argued for immigration reform...

whether I am or not also has no bearing on the discussion of CORPORATIONS and GOVT COLLUDING anyways as even Ozmo has admitted.

why dont you start another thread, its apparent your lack of reading comrehension has given you issues on this thread. Perhaps seperating the two topics will help you keep on track.

[Jack T. Cross]

did I moron? please quote where I argued for immigration reform...

Come on, Tony. If you won't admit your position, just say so.

whether I am or not also has no bearing on the discussion of CORPORATIONS and GOVT COLLUDING anyways as even Ozmo has admitted.

Perhaps you could explain what causes our condition regarding illegal workers, when it opposes the common interests of our country so greatly.

[avxo]

I'm against anything that causes an American in his or her country to compete against a non-American to survive.

That's just flat out silly. If someone is in this country legally not only am I not bothered than an American might have to compete for a job but I won't even shed a single tear if he ends up not getting it. Competition is what this country is all about, across the board.

Will you argue that so-called Immigration Reform is good for the American worker, Tony?

I don't know about Tony, but I'm as uninterested in the "American worker" as I am in the "Chinese worker" or the "Vietnamese worker" or whatever. In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward: that is, to get the most skill for the least amount. The curves and cutoffs aren't always the same of course - the "sweet spot" is different if I'm looking to hire an engineer to design something than it is when I'm looking for a gardener to take care of my yard.

Immigration reform shouldn't be examined based on how good it is for some hypothetical, individual American worker. It should be examined and evaluated based on how good it is for America.