Move To Amend

Move To Amend barnstorming tour comes to Toledo Monday June 25th 7p-9p. Hear David Cobb, former Green Party candidate, talk about challenging corporate rule. Event is free which should please most Dems. Cobb wants a new 28th amendment to the constitution. For more info contact

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Sorry, forgot to say where...........Park Church 1456 Harvard Boulevard

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Why? Our federal overlords don't obey the rule of law set forth in the constitution as it is now, why bother giving them one more ammendment to ignore?

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

Firstly it's redundant to say "new 28th Amendment", since there's no 28th Amendment now, hence it's automatically a new thing. If you can't figure out for yourself that there are only 27 Amendments in your national Constitution, then you're pretty much a lost cause anyway.

Secondly, you don't need an Amendment to get the matter done. The Congress can merely pass an Act to establish the needed revocation of corporate personhood. Of course that will never happen, since the Congress is almost totally filled with millionaires who rely on corporate donations and other support in order to (in their view) function in their office. Our Congress was long lost to us, when corporations took it over, and we followed right along, constantly choosing either Corporate Candidate A (the endorsed Democrat) or Corporate Candidate B (the endorsed Republican) in every election for Senator and Representative. In addition, any attempt to bring alternatives abiding by limited government (like Libertarians) are met with strong and hooting shouts of derision from all population sectors.

So there's no practical way of fixing the Congress by citizen action. The citizens themselves don't want to act. They prize the status quo highly no matter how obviously bad it is for themselves.

LOL I laugh when I hear things like "Corporate rule".

Fred you should ask Mr. Cobb what type of cell phone he uses. I would be willing to bet it's newer and better than mine.

For the record I use a 4 year old Sanyo SCP-2700. Yet I am a conservative who by GZ's definition worships corporations and aid to their "control".

Like government a corporation can only have as much control as a populace gives them and Citizen's United did nothing to establish corporations as people. That had already been precedent for over 130 years and it wasn't controversial when that was established, in fact, it was widely accepted.


Don't laugh at corporate rule Mikeya; it's all happened before. Corporations set up by charters are what the king used to govern the original colonies here in the "new world". Remember any of them from your history? Our revolution was in essence a revolt against the way these charters were unfair to the colonists.


LOL again I will repeat myself. Governments and corporations do not exist for as much as the people allow them. Corporations rely on people, they cannot and do not control people as long as the people do not let them. If you are controlled by a corporation it is because you allowed it.


If you are controlled by a corporation it is because you allowed it.

That is exactly why I am against anything that gives corporations any more lobbying power than they already have. I don't want to allow corporations to control me by owning my government. You might say I'm looking ahead, not wanting to get controled in the first place.

Or you're kidding. Corporations can't control us unless we want them to control us? Do you own a million shares or so of a giant corporation's stock? People who do are the only people who have influence with corporate executives!

Corporations have all the top cards in the deck. They control most of the wealth, not only of this nation, but that of the world. Their money buys influence. Now that they can spend all the money they desire on political campaigns, unimpeded by laws declared to be Unconstitutional by SCOTUS, there is no end to the influence they have upon voters who place people in governmental offices.

Back in the 1890s, Thomas Nast and others drew political cartoons showing U.S. Senators being "owned" by different industrial trusts. We're right back to that status again. Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his grave. He erroneously thought that he killed the giant trusts. They just waited for Teddy to die!

"Corporations have all the top cards in the deck. They control most of the wealth, not only of this nation, but that of the world." Dale I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Corporations do not control the money. People do. Example. Pan-Am once the largest international airline, once thought to be invincible. Where is it today? When they lost control of the flight plans the customers went to other smaller and frienlier carriers.

Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Nast dealt with monopolies, where corporations would merge with their competitors where a select few could control the market. That is illegal today so it is not representative of today or the Citizens United decisions.

In fact the CU took the already established (100 year old) precedent that corporations are people and said that all people are extended protections under the constitution. I'm sorry that constitutional protections to people offends you so much.


Modern multinational corporations have as much or more power than the old monopolies ever did! No corporation is invincible by itself, but where PanAm fell, Delta arose. As airlines have consolidated, each emerging super-carrier has become more powerful. And the airline industry doesn't even come close to the power of the mighty oil conglomerates.

People should have the power, but in modern America, money talks. Who do you think has more opportunity to meet with elected Federal officials? You, me, or Bill Gates? Let's analyze a little. There's you, a member of our military. There's me, a retired teacher. And there's Bill Gates, corporate icon. I wonder which one of the three of us has more access? Hmmm...

You keep saying naive yet you have yet to show it.

They are not as powerful as the old monopolies, give me an example. Delta is no where even close to as being as big or as powerful as Pan Am was in fact they have gotten so undercut that they've actually had to file for bankruptcy in order to reduce their labor costs. So please give a valid example to back up this statement "As airlines have consolidated, each emerging super-carrier has become more powerful."

"And the airline industry doesn't even come close to the power of the mighty oil conglomerates". And yet none of those oil companies are as powerful as the old Standard Oil (one of those old monopolies), and there's more need for oil today.

Actually as voters in a swing state where elections are generally close we tend to have a pretty important say as long as we vote. Meeting with federal officials doesn't mean you sway them but having a significant vote means those politicians will try to sway you.

Yep, I'm so naive I've given specific examples to back up all I've said.


Dale's still not catching on that corporations are highly customer dependent (except for the majors like the banks, the auto companies and aerospace guild, which have pretty much permanently attached themselves to the U.S. Treasury).

So how we spend our money, can greatly affect corporations. But that would be (GASP!) restraint and a fall in one's standard of living, and since Dale is part of the Golden Class (which has politically aligned itself with assaulting the taxpayer to assure its own high standard of living), it just doesn't compute with him. He expects to keep spending and keep consuming, but somehow the "power of the people" will be used to force corporations to keep supplying him cheap goods and services, while that same power will continue to support his massive retirement package. Bzzt! Logic error!

The globalist experiment is effectively over, largely because people like Dale were blinded by greed. You can't have a world market for cheap goods and services, without a concomitant world market for cheap labor. And that means everybody, public or private sector, unionized or not. The world in this case must include the USA in both terms: Buyer (consumer) and seller (laborer). To continue going into the detail at hand, that means the US consumer can't expect to enjoy high wages anymore, regardless of his organization affiliation. US wages under globalism must continue falling towards the world mean (while in China, oh happy day!-- their wages must RISE to the world mean). The world mean wage will probably gyrate to about $2/hr.

Since the globalist failure will take at least a generation to shake out, we're going to find ourselves economically stranded, and pure survival will demand that we revoke all those stupid minimum-wage and other such laws that indirectly make it illegal to continue expanding the economy of the USA. Under globalism, a minimum wage law is a mathematically proven killer of jobs.

Right on many points GZ.

I predicted the Occupy movement would fail because of two reasons. 1) Despite their corporation complaints they were highly materialistic with their iphones and ipads. 2) There was no follow-on organization beyond their message. Their actions were all designed to "push their message" rather than make sustainable change or meet realistic goals.


Yes, the materialism of the OWS was a big factor. You could tell that from two reasons; one, logic said so, and two, it was never mentioned in the popular media. As we go into the future and all those OWS participants get jobs and families, you're going to find 95%+ of them will put their money into Wall Street accounts, take out loans ultimately sourced from Wall Street institutions, and spend and consume in ways that only increase the business of Wall Street.

Nothing can change when people have no intention of changing. The OWS people told Wall Street one thing, but their money continues to tell Wall Street the diametric opposite. Guess which message the bankers listen to?

Dale and the rest believe that their own personal and financial habits aren't a factor. It's one of the biggest examples of cognitive dissonance extant today.

Do you see the political ads saturating the air waves? Do you really believe that these ads have no influence upon the voting public? If so, you are naive.

to the lowest wage levels. My answer would be to raise up the workers in other nations, and to hold international corporations to higher standards in foreign lands. It's a long, extremely difficult battle, but one worth waging.

In addition, you rant and rave about members of the so-called "golden class" who get a few thousand dollars per month in a pension to which I contributed much more than one contributes to Social Security. When I started teaching, I still contributed that higher percentage to the retirement system, but my salary was so low, it qualified my family to receive food stamps, and if our child had been of school age, he would have qualified for a reduced-price lunch.

I've pointed out this out about you before, GZ. You would want to return the remuneration levels of teachers back to the days where they were so low that they would qualify for Federal assistance, but you would insist that they be exemplary teachers! How does one attract some of the top college-educated people, most of whom graduate owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, into a profession at wages which place them and their families in or near poverty?

Meanwhile, thousands of corporate executives of just one investment firm which was bailed out by the Federal Government received one year bonuses which amounted to 10-15- years worth of my entire yearly retirement benefit. Typically, Japan's CEOs draw salaries of less than $1 million per year. Most U.S. corporate CEOs earn that much per month, per week, or even per day. You are labeling the wrong people as the "Golden Class'!

In your scenario, the working class keeps falling into deeper and deeper poverty while the rich continue to live their lives of privilege. I won't accept that future for hard-working Americans.

Oh, for fuck's sake!

DALE! IT'S MATH! MATHEMATICS! Have you ever heard of it?

The 150 million workers in the United States are moving into a global labor market with BILLIONS of people. China and India together command 2.5 billion people, of which about 1.1 billion are considered their work force. What's the weighted average, Dale? Every man in our work force is facing 7.3 others from those nations alone. So the American with his $15/hr average wage is facing 7 more guys with a $1/hr average wage. Math, Dale! Where does the averaged wage end up?

(7.3/8.3)x$1.00 + (1/8.3)x$15.00 = $2.70

That's global labor arbitrage. It's vicious for the entering expensive labor nations, but you get cheap products and services out of it. I'm sure you liked the latter, Dale.

At any rate, you can't legislate economics and math to deliver a higher number. How many times must I remind you of this? And you called yourself a teacher? No wonder so many people have fled the TPS in terror, yanking their children out of harm's way.

Dale blathered: "In your scenario, the working class keeps falling into deeper and deeper poverty while the rich continue to live their lives of privilege. I won't accept that future for hard-working Americans."

You have no choice, Dale. You MUST accept it, since you already chose to accept a world market for products and services, which automatically runs on a world market for labor.

If you don't want the American labor market to be dragged down into the world's labor market, then you must concomitantly close the door on the world product market.

But you Golden Class people love to shop at Wal-Mart and take only the benefits of cheap products and services. There's another price to be paid for that, and whining about it won't fix it. Whining that you need to continue to be highly paid, doesn't alter the economic forces that you're blatantly promoting.

There is a famous quote with which I agree: "Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple."

I am not unrealistic. I stated that the battle would be long and hard. But it is up to working people everywhere to get their fair share of the wealth produced by giant international conglomerates. GZ -- You state that averaging down is inevitable. You have surrendered. I never will. And I am concerned for the well-being of those nearly 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians as well. We all share this tiny planet.

Read that U.S. Declaration of Independence again. Jefferson wasn't only writing it for the limited audience of American colonists. When he stated that , "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Jefferson meant everyone in the entire world! He wanted this ideal society to begin in America, but he certainly wanted it to be a blueprint for societies worldwide.

I use profanity to suit 3 purposes:

1. It expresses anger.

2. It's the appropriate reaction to appalling stupidity (i.e. yours).

3. It's an out for people like you who can't actually fight the facts and logic of the situation; instead of dealing with your failure to win the argument, you seize upon profanity with false umbrage like a drowning man does a life raft.

Too bad you're nowhere near bright enough to realize you just got trapped.

None of my points were invalidated by anything you're saying. You're making brainless claims that you'll "fight". What fight, Dale? You're 'fighting' by constantly funding your enemy (the corporations). That's not fighting; that's total collaboration. You may mutter in your house about the jack-booted thugs who invaded your sleepy Gallic village, but then you go about your business with an armband, with a hearty cheer for each Teutonic soldier you see on the street. And you do everything they ask of you. SOME FIGHTER YOU ARE, DALE.

The enemy is this economic system, but you're a 100% supporter of it. You remind me now (and not in a good way) about the Occupy Wall Street protesters. They claimed they were against predatory capitalism, but each OWS 'warrior' was sporting a cell phone and ultimately depended on mommy and daddy's trading accounts for the money to eat during their faux protest. And 95%+ of them either took out loans, or will take out loans. They are part of the system intrinsically... like you are. In order for the system to change, you must CHANGE YOUR FUCKING BEHAVIOR.

But you won't. Clearly. That makes you one of the most glaring of hypocrites.

is a sign of your lack of good arguments and your attempt to quiet those with whom you disagree. You're the one who should change your behavior.

BTW -- China, which has benefitted the most recently from the internationalization of the global economy, is one of the most socialist countries in the world. It is also a vicious dicatorship which does not respond to its citzens' complaints, nor enforce labor laws nor environmental laws. In addition, China has national health care. This means that neither its citizens nor its businesses are subject to the outrageous health care costs which are a major reason why our economy is suffering. Add to this the fact that China subsidizes its industries, and that China has either tariffs or quotas on imports. Our trade agreements with China are abominable. Both Democratic and Republican presidents and congresses have approved of this inequality in trade relations.

One thing we can do is have a real national health care system, similar to that in Canada, While not great, Canada's currrent unemployment rate is 7.3%. Why can Canada, a country with relatively high labor costs and a much smaller population than ours, both afford national health care, and do so with a better overall economy? Hmmm?

Your beloved Obama and the horde of Democrats didn't want a real national health care system. Hence, Obamacare, which was just icing made from piss applied to a cake made from shit. OC very specifically targets the weakest members in society who also have enough money to steal: The middle class.

And that doesn't include you, the Golden Class, since you unionized weenies already got waivers from Obamacare. Odd, that. It's almost like it was planned that way.

you have no idea. I have actually worked with an international committee to help foreign workers in nations with repressive governments all around the world, including in China. Members of this committee have visited workers in some of the worst of these nations at risk to themselves and to those with whom they met.

Oh, I have an idea, alright. You Golden Class people are famous consumers, and that automatically means you support the viciously exploitative globalist system.

Your dollars talk louder than some pathetic efforts to "pressure governments", as if that ever did anything. You can't sanely expect to slosh billions into East Fuckistan in order to drive a system of cheap manufacturing, and then control the concomitant abuses in that system with a few visits were you go "tut tut" to some of their officials. Like I said before, you're very much like the OWS protesters; Wall Street totally ignored them since money is all they listen to, and the money kept saying "cheat, steal, get bailouts".

Your repeated use of profanity says more about the credence of your statements than I ever could. Keep it up!

Only in an intellectually stifled place like your classroom. Here in reality and in a public forum, it's entirely different. You can't control the agenda anymore.

Corporations already owned the media. They don't need access to politicians. They don't need to advertise. THEY OWNED THE MEDIA AND COULD ALREADY CONTROL THE MESSAGE. If you think the CU decision made any change to the politics in America it is you who is naive.

Now you are worried about Big Oil and their "power". Trust me their power is dwarfed in comparison to the TelCom industry. Yes that's right TelCom. Through them information moves and information is power today.

Yet, despite this earlier this year, AFTER THE CU DECISION, SOPA was stopped. How? The proponents had ENDLESS pockets and the opponents to it did not.

It was stopped because consumers took the time to educate themselves and exercised their concerns to the corporations they used regularly and they and the consumers took part in American Censorship Day and many gathered signatures on petitions.

So consumers were able to compel a few corporations to prevent a large congolmorations of corporations from controlling the internet.

Oh BTW, a large proponent of SOPA were the same corporations who owned traditional media yet you are content being led by them. Things like the McCain-Feingold the fairness doctrine and the FCC takeover of the t.v. and radio airwaves have done more to limit the number of voices and freespeech in the guise of promoting them.


And what is the consistent message from Fox?

Even Conservative icon, Newt Gingrich, stated that CNN (which has MUCH LOWER ratings than does Fox News) is more nearly "fair and balanced" than is Fox.

Now you are arguing ideological debates vice corporate influence. These are apples and oranges.

The ideological debate on who is "fair" depends upon which side of the fence you stand and how "fair" or "biased" they are depends upon how far away you are from the fence.

This was not what I argued now is it.

I spoke about Corporate influence on the media. For instance NBCUniversal was a HUGE proponent of SOPA joining the MPAA and the RIAA. Now MSNBC and FoxNews could not be farther from each other ideologically but 20th Century Fox, owned by same org as FoxNews, is a member of the MPAA. So ideologically they were different yet two ideologically different Corporations held sway over media and were able promote their message freely if they so choosed. Neither needed access to a politician. CU did not apply nor affect the outcome.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.