To our fellow muricans

[SixThumbs]

I also find it odd that there's a 1 million-plus views and one comment.

[_schizo321437]

[CrazyCracka420]

It's not at all surprising considering only a handful of corporations own our media outlets in this country.  They are there to first and foremost make as much money as possible.  They do this by entertaining people, not informing them.  And it's a bonus for them to keep the plebs as ignorant as possible, or the plebs may start raising their concerns about practices that help these same corporations make windfall profits (such as basically running the government and getting sweet tax breaks/loopholes, and getting around regulations). 

And we may not use chemical weapons (debate it all you want, but it's a moot point), but we certainly kill a lot of people in the name of "security".  Even though Iraq never posed a threat to our own country, and was in fact propped up by our country in the 1980s.  So we make our country less secure (by destabilizing Iraq) and we kill and displace millions because of a war of choice.  Mission Accomplished!

Our military industrial complex in America is terrible, and our prison industrial complex (including the War on Drugs) is a close second. 

[SixThumbs]

It's not at all surprising considering only a handful of corporations own our media outlets in this country.  They are there to first and foremost make as much money as possible.  They do this by entertaining people, not informing them.  And it's a bonus for them to keep the plebs as ignorant as possible, or the plebs may start raising their concerns about practices that help these same corporations make windfall profits (such as basically running the government and getting sweet tax breaks/loopholes, and getting around regulations). 

And we may not use chemical weapons (debate it all you want, but it's a moot point), but we certainly kill a lot of people in the name of "security".  Even though Iraq never posed a threat to our own country, and was in fact propped up by our country in the 1980s.  So we make our country less secure (by destabilizing Iraq) and we kill and displace millions because of a war of choice.  Mission Accomplished!

Our military industrial complex in America is terrible, and our prison industrial complex (including the War on Drugs) is a close second.

I agree wholeheartedly and it's the reason I "dropped out" of the military.

Also, this is a few years old but entirely relevant:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Stop the hate

Also isn't it incredibly ironic that a poster on media convergence criticises radio stations for airing Mr Robinson 6 million times, of any song? The Laureate, anybody?

[Xant]

While different people were in office, you can't deny the link between the government and the American people. Each US government in history had some legitimacy in its actions with respect to the population. On top of that, people in high places don't always change when the government changes, and some of the most powerful official institutions of the US cultivated very strong ideological bias at the top for a very long time. Saying that the government of 1970 is not the one of 2013 is true, but that doesn't mean everything changed either.

What does a link between the government "and the American people" have to do with anything?

It doesn't mean anything has changed, but it doesn't mean anything has NOT changed either...

They were different people in 1970 than they are now. What US did then has nothing to do with what US is doing now. Or should the US forever be in favor of dropping atom bombs on cities everywhere because they did so in WW2? No, of course. You are committing the basic fallacy of not being able to separate an organization from the people who run it.

[Kafein]

What does a link between the government "and the American people" have to do with anything?

It doesn't mean anything has changed, but it doesn't mean anything has NOT changed either...

They were different people in 1970 than they are now. What US did then has nothing to do with what US is doing now. Or should the US forever be in favor of dropping atom bombs on cities everywhere because they did so in WW2? No, of course. You are committing the basic fallacy of not being able to separate an organization from the people who run it.

No, you exaggerate what I've said. I'm simply pointing out that the people who run these organisations themselves have pushed their ideologies inside those organisations so that other people with the same ideology would get important offices and the others would remain subordinates. What I'm saying is that there is some continuity despite the years passing and the people changing.

[Xant]

"Some continuity" means nothing. For all you know the current administration has completely different views on the use of chemical weapons than the Nixon administration.

[SixThumbs]

Either way we have the Chemical Weapons Convention on top of the Geneva Protocol so an administrations views on chemical weapons should be moot.

[Rumblood]

While different people were in office, you can't deny the link between the government and the American people. Each US government in history had some legitimacy in its actions with respect to the population. On top of that, people in high places don't always change when the government changes, and some of the most powerful official institutions of the US cultivated very strong ideological bias at the top for a very long time. Saying that the government of 1970 is not the one of 2013 is true, but that doesn't mean everything changed either.

I can easily deny that the 100 richest people in America represent the ideology or interests of 313 million people. There is a reason that we generally don't get to vote on topics except at the local level and only get to vote on people, and there is a reason that only 2 parties exist with any chance at gaining that office, and there is a reason that generally the people who arrive at that final election for the office raised more money than the other guy in primaries.

[SixThumbs]

The link between the government and the American people is that politicians in government spend a majority of their time fund-raising for campaigns rather then reading proposed bills, accepting state-sanctioned bribes (lobbies and their money), and engaging in propaganda for their lobby-backed interests (public relations management).

It's not that the government has legitimacy in it's actions with the consent of the population, not from what it's seemed in my lifetime anyway, it's the general population fighting for or maintaining their family of four and white-picket fences. Some with stars in their eyes looking to be the next William Heung or the chance to climb out of the mire to join the upper echelons standing on the back of others.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[zagibu]

I can easily deny that the 100 richest people in America represent the ideology or interests of 313 million people. There is a reason that we generally don't get to vote on topics except at the local level and only get to vote on people, and there is a reason that only 2 parties exist with any chance at gaining that office, and there is a reason that generally the people who arrive at that final election for the office raised more money than the other guy in primaries.

The reason is that the American people are too dumb to set a new system up.

[Kafein]

I can easily deny that the 100 richest people in America represent the ideology or interests of 313 million people. There is a reason that we generally don't get to vote on topics except at the local level and only get to vote on people, and there is a reason that only 2 parties exist with any chance at gaining that office, and there is a reason that generally the people who arrive at that final election for the office raised more money than the other guy in primaries.

Okay, fair enough, but that doesn't change my second point.

"Some continuity" means nothing. For all you know the current administration has completely different views on the use of chemical weapons than the Nixon administration.

When the administration of some important organisations such as various Intelligence Community agencies is held by (in this case) neocons for so long, their influence does not vanish instantly with a new government.

[Rumblood]

The reason is that the American people are too dumb to set a new system up.

More like you are too dumb to understand what that would take.

Until the American people are so dissatisfied with the current government that we are ready and willing to engage in a bloody revolution that would result in the deaths of at least 100 million people and destroy our country, that isn't going to happen. So long as the majority of the middle class feels better off under this government rather than a country in ruins with half of them dead, that isn't going to happen.
Unless we suddenly turn into Russia or Greece or any number of African countries overnight, that isn't going to happen.

[zagibu]

More like you are too dumb to understand what that would take.

Until the American people are so dissatisfied with the current government that we are ready and willing to engage in a bloody revolution that would result in the deaths of at least 100 million people and destroy our country, that isn't going to happen. So long as the majority of the middle class feels better off under this government rather than a country in ruins with half of them dead, that isn't going to happen.
Unless we suddenly turn into Russia or Greece or any number of African countries overnight, that isn't going to happen.

Or you could just stop giving money to those greedy bastards that control your lives.