Skip to main content

Chris Hayes & Guest Suggest Bobby Jindal & Phil Robertson Would Like Anal Sex if They Tried It

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

Throughout history, there was always a middle class -- mostly merchants, franklin farmers, doctors, skilled artisans such as blacksmiths and silver smiths.  However, they were always a tiny portion of society.

 

Only with the Industrial Revolution and the idea of pooling capital, in a method that did not risk compromising  everything one owned, did that middle class grow into a major portion of society.  Skilled workers were required and that new legal entity -- the corporation, was available to provide the funds to buy real estate, machinery and pay workers. 

 

English law considered corporations as legal persons so they might enter into legal transactions such as contracts and be held liable for debts and misdeeds.  Also, so they could protect themselves in the court of public opinion.  The old aristocratic elites hated corporations for making fortunes for their investors and diluting the elites influence in government while marrying into those same self made fortunes. (American heiress's fortune rescued Downton Abbey). 

 

Now, that disdain is held by the academic and political elites, who wish power on their fellows and those businesses. 

Last edited by direstraits

Jt, you might want to rethink your position:

 

A major cause of the Great Recession was the recklessness of Wall Street bankers. But Democrats gave them an edge in 2010 when they imposed crushing burdens on smaller competitors who’d done nothing wrong.

 

The Dodd-Frank bill has imposed “significant costs on community banks without providing benefits to consumers or the economy that justify those costs,” concluded a paper by Wake Forest University law professor Tanya Marsh and Joseph Norman.

 

Despite ample evidence, no Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for fraud.

 

So it’s easy to see why Democrats are Wall Street’s darlings. Last month, Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton more than $400,000 for making two speeches. Wall Street has donated more to Barack Obama than to any other presidential candidate, save for ex-Wall Streeter Mitt Romney, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

 

The income inequality his policies have intensified is “immoral,” President Obama said at Knox College in July. But as Americans who’ve lost their health insurance can attest, he often says things he doesn’t mean. Actions speak louder.

 

“While the populist rhetoric of modern (Democratic) politicians is all about redistribution and inequality, the reality is that (their) policies entrench privilege,” wrote Walter Russell Mead, editor of The American Interest.

 

“Well-connected insiders get sweetheart deals from government, and insurance lobbyists wield a veto over Obamacare’s restructuring of the American health care system,” Mr. Mead said. “Most of the so-called green policies are basically ways to channel money from ordinary consumers to political insiders who invest in clever enterprises engineered to suck in subsidies or to thrive in protected, artificial markets created by regulations.”

 

President Obama has “redistributed” more tax dollars to crony capitalists than to the poor. From the $787 billion “stimulus” that didn’t stimulate, to subsidies for “green” companies that produced more corruption than energy, to Obamacare, every “investment” he has made has produced a windfall for the politically connected but hasn’t helped ordinary Americans.

The party of the rich isn’t the one you thought it was.

 

 

 

 

Consistently, government has bailed out the larger banks when they got in trouble.  Smaller banks are closed and their assets taken over by another willing bank.  Because of government bailouts, the financial institutions do not act rationally, as they count on a bailout. 

 

Henceforth, a simple law that if the government bails out a bank, they must accept default bankruptcy.  Then, contracts with executives can be ignored and bonuses not paid.  Bank auditors can assess the parts of the bank that got in trouble,  Those managers can be dismissed with a couple of weeks pay and a lead parachute, not a golden one. 

 

Cronyism has corrupted they system and should be ended. 

 

 

 

 

Wait...what? Did you watch the video? They did not say that Phil should try anal sex. They ask, since he said the va gina was better than the a nus, how does he know. Has he tried it? That is a question not a suggestion. Also the only thing they said about Cruz, Jindel and Palin was that it would be an interesting debate to hear them have. 

 

I guess you can say whatever you want Roland when you are just making crap up as you go. LOL

 

In this case, you and the blogger, just changed what they said to fit your own narrative. In the case of what Phil Robertson said, his comments were quoted word for word. Since he seemed to be speaking from some sort of authority on the subject of homosexuality then it is a valid question. How does he know one is better than the other?

 

Minorities fighting for equal rights are not the problem with this country. The fact that they HAVE to fight for equal treatment and rights is the problem. Those of us that believe in the Constitution will continue to support those ideals. 

 

Bashir lost his job for his comments about Palin..right? Where is the right wing outrage over his freedom of speech? Nothing...crickets...thought so. The right screamed for him to be fired. He at least had the decency to apologize for his comments. I'm not a fan of Palin, but I thought he went too far.

 

What you didn't see is the left insist that his freedom of speech had been infringed upon. You know why? Because it hadn't. He was free to say whatever he wanted to say, he then had to deal with the consequences of that speech. Just like Phil.  I thought you guys on the right were all for personal responsibility, or does that only apply when you are pointing your fingers at the poor and minorities? 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Wait...what? Did you watch the video? They did not say that Phil should try anal sex. They ask, since he said the va gina was better than the a nus, how does he know. Has he tried it? That is a question not a suggestion. Also the only thing they said about Cruz, Jindel and Palin was that it would be an interesting debate to hear them have. 

 

I guess you can say whatever you want Roland when you are just making crap up as you go. LOL

 

In this case, you and the blogger, just changed what they said to fit your own narrative. In the case of what Phil Robertson said, his comments were quoted word for word. Since he seemed to be speaking from some sort of authority on the subject of homosexuality then it is a valid question. How does he know one is better than the other?

 

Minorities fighting for equal rights are not the problem with this country. The fact that they HAVE to fight for equal treatment and rights is the problem. Those of us that believe in the Constitution will continue to support those ideals. 

 

Bashir lost his job for his comments about Palin..right? Where is the right wing outrage over his freedom of speech? Nothing...crickets...thought so. The right screamed for him to be fired. He at least had the decency to apologize for his comments. I'm not a fan of Palin, but I thought he went too far.

 

What you didn't see is the left insist that his freedom of speech had been infringed upon. You know why? Because it hadn't. He was free to say whatever he wanted to say, he then had to deal with the consequences of that speech. Just like Phil.  I thought you guys on the right were all for personal responsibility, or does that only apply when you are pointing your fingers at the poor and minorities? 

Good Lord! What a ramble...

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×