Nurses radical bid to knock out political curruption

Nurses Activism

Published

I remember absolutely knowing that the accepted idea that "everyone knows" integration won't work was based on ignorance. hey said, "What if your daughter married one?" Well my grandparents son and daughter married one.

My maternal grandfather was appalled that HIS beautiful daughter wanted to marry a white jazz musician.

"They use dope" he said.

My United States Marines uncle, home on leave, convinced my grandma to invite my Daddy to be to dinner. My Dad wore his Air Force uniform. He and my grandfather got along famously. My parents were a loving couple from 1942 until my Mom died in 1979. They were wonderful parents and grandparents. You have heard my Dads horn if you are over ten years old and watch TV or go to movies.

Now "they" say nothing can be done about the corporations and big labor making OUR laws.

Sorry. When people realize that these corporations only care about profit and the big unions are in partnership with these corporations WE THE PEOPLE will change this currupt system.

The "Clean Money Initiative" was for state offices. Also the candidates in the general election for President turn down public funding so they can take the BIG money

2004 Presidential Election

People need much more education. When voters don't understand an initiative they vore "no".

Opensecrets: US Congress

Plus we are not giving up - Prop. 89: We've Opened a Door for Reform That Will Never Be Closed

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
I remember absolutely knowing that the accepted idea that "everyone knows" integration won't work was based on ignorance. hey said, "What if your daughter married one?" Well my grandparents son and daughter married one.

My maternal grandfather was appalled that HIS beautiful daughter wanted to marry a white jazz musician.

"They use dope" he said.

My United States Marines uncle, home on leave, convinced my grandma to invite my Daddy to be to dinner. My Dad wore his Air Force uniform. He and my grandfather got along famously. My parents were a loving couple from 1942 until my Mom died in 1979. They were wonderful parents and grandparents. You have heard my Dads horn if you are over ten years old and watch TV or go to movies.

Now "they" say nothing can be done about the corporations and big labor making OUR laws.

Sorry. When people realize that these corporations only care about profit and the big unions are in partnership with these corporations WE THE PEOPLE will change this currupt system.

The "Clean Money Initiative" was for state offices. Also the candidates in the general election for President turn down public funding so they can take the BIG money

2004 Presidential Election

People need much more education. When voters don't understand an initiative they vore "no".

Opensecrets: US Congress

Plus we are not giving up - Prop. 89: We've Opened a Door for Reform That Will Never Be Closed

I only posted that 9% thing now because I only just read it and thought it was pertinent to this debate.

AT issue with the whole 'let the gov't clean the political system' concept is that the gov't is RUN by politicians. That's a self-policing program that lets the foxes guard the chicken house.

In reality what happens is the SAME thing that is happening w/ McCain-Feingold: politicans read the law not on the basis of how it creates a fair playing field, but how they can use it to gain advantage against their opponents.

MoveOn.org and SwiftBoatsForTruth being just 2 examples of what you get when you let the foxes run the henhouse.

In reality, the result is censorship, not of 'bad' political ideas, if there is such a thing, but of any political speech those in power believe will hurt THEIR chances of re-election.

The only way to have a relative 'clean' process is to leave the process completely unencumbered by means of manipulation by those that benefit from the process. In other words, the gov't should butt out when it comes to the political process.

Money IS speech in a society that gets out its message by money-bought media exposure. To restrict or redirect the flow of dollars, in any way, is to tamper with free speech. THAT is what will serve to create corruption FAR more then letting the individual or combined efforts of voters have their voice unfettered at the table.

I like your story about your parents, but it's just not on point. I'm simply not some campaign finance bigot that needs to be run to ground by voters educated to understand that my viewpoint is immoral.

I don't mean that in a bad way, but that appears to be the moral of your story. THIS is not about ME being immoral with my view that politicians can't be trusted to police themselves; rather, we have different viewpoints on what would bring about a better, more moral (more fair if you will) outcome.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Don't we the people own the airwaves?

Why not require debates in prime time for a broadcast license?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Don't we the people own the airwaves?

Why not require debates in prime time for a broadcast license?

If you'll remember back to the 1992 debates, the 'main' aka party candidates only allowed Perot at ONE debate and most such debates always have at main issue exactly which candiates are viable enough to participate.

Again, once legislated, the parties in power will manipulate the process to THEIR advantage, and NOT to a fair advantage.

The only way to prevent such an outcome is to micromanage the rules to the point that they cannot allow for exceptions. The result is the law of unintended consequences: in an attempt to BE fair, every known equation of fairness could not only NOT be anticipated, each and every example would foment intense debate about what exactly IS fair. The results, Court challenges in forum shopped venues to get decisions that equate to gaining an upper hand.

In short, the power of the people rests WITH the people. ANY time we turn that power over to gov't, for ANY reason, the result is to take that power OUT of our hands and place it in the hands of those with a vested interest in the results NOT based upon fairness.

The gov't might be OF the people, but it is run by those with their own agendas. The founding fathers fully understood this, and THAT is why free speech shall be unabridged. Since money is speech that means the free flow of money in elections must also be unabridged: not denied, and not manipulated, in any way.

Bottom line: lobbyists and big business might have an upper hand with dollars, but that is countered by very powerful forces: 1. Most lobbyists are comprised of interest groups comprised of individual people - in itself, that is a pooling of dollars by the electorate to get out their views, a form of free speech. 2. Big business is also accountable to 'voters'; the masses of consumers with the ability to vote with their feet. 3. Ultimately, it is NOT lobbyists and big business that vote in bloc in elections; it is the individual voters. THAT is the ultimate 'upper hand'.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Well when a citizen needs a prescription medication that person pays for lobbiests to work against the best interest of all people including those whose money pays for the needed medication.

If you need fuel to go to work your money goes to pay for the oil lobby.

Why must we pay for the free "speech" of multinational corporations whose only interest is profit?

When people change their locus of control and realize WE are the government NOT corporations WE will improve our government.

It is always a struggle. Then we die. Iwould rather work for good than give up.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment