Murdoch strikes again by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Murdoch strikes again

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 04:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 991
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
News Corp (NWSA.O) shareholders on Friday quizzed Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch and his fellow directors over the process by which the company makes donations to political organizations.

The directors faced several questions at the company's annual general meeting from individual shareholders and shareholder activists about a recent decision to donate $1 million each to the Republican Governors Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The gifts are being made in the run-up to U.S. congressional mid-term elections on Nov 2.

Murdoch said he and the board believed the donation was made in the "best interest of the company."

"We believe it is in the interest of the company and the country that there be a fair amount of change in Washington, D.C.," he said.

Shareholder activist groups including The Nathan Cummings Foundation have criticized the recent donations. In a letter to the board on Oct. 11 the foundation said the decision was "troubling".

"The issue of corporate political spending is particularly sensitive for media companies given the public's expectation that they provide objective news coverage," the letter said

Murdoch also said the decision had "nothing to do with the editorial or journalism of the company." While he accepted the size of the gifts was "unusual," he said it was unlikely to be repeated.

Rod Eddington, who is News Corp's lead director, said he understood the concerns about a need for transparency and that the decision to make the donations only came after the board took advice from management.

News Corp's influence in politics in the United States and the United Kingdom through its media outlets has often been a controversial issue with many of Murdoch's adversaries.

His bid to buy back the 61 percent of UK satellite TV provider BSkyB (BSY.L) News Corp doesn't already own is currently being challenged by rival media companies. They are calling on the British government to review the bid because they said it would give News Corp too much dominance in the UK media landscape.

The UK tabloid Daily Mirror reported on Friday that Murdoch had met with British Prime Minister David Cameron for 45 minutes just 24 hours after the Conservative Party leader took office in May.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1519690120101015

Quote:
Murdoch also indicated that shareholders would not be engaged in selecting recipients of donations, and that if shareholders disagreed with directors' decisions, "you have the right to vote us off the board."

When asked specifically about his widely reported comment that News Corp.'s donation to the RGA was a result of his friendship with former Fox News employee and current GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, Murdoch said "I didn't say it had nothing to do with News. Corp. I did make a foolish throwaway line saying -- I was trying to -- candidate Kasich who used to work for us for a number of years."

Eddington told a representative from the Nathan Cummings Foundation -- which sent a letter to the board of directors earlier this week calling for full disclosure of News Corp.'s political contributions -- that their proposal would be reviewed and that News Corp. would "act expeditiously."
Quote:
MLP STOCKHOLDER: And regarding the potential reputational risk for giving such a sizeable contribution to the U.S. Chamber, which is involved in multiple scandals right now?

MURDOCH: There are no scandals, there are only allegations, and you should not be stating that as fact.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: The scandals are a fact. I mean, they're being played out in the headlines every day, so --

MURDOCH: No, any allegations, I'm sorry.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: If it's playing out in the headlines, I would argue that that is in fact a scandal, and I'd just, all I would really like to know is what the board's process is in weighing the reputational risk involved. I take your point about the Wall Street Journal piece today, and I welcome that news, but I would like to know how the board evaluated the reputational risk there. .... It's particularly troubling to shareholders that, in particular, the U.S. Chamber contribution was only learned of by shareholders because of a leak to the press. Would the board consider much broader disclosure around shareholder -- around political spending?

MURDOCH: We've considered it from time to time. I don't believe we'll [inaudible] it again, but we'll see.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: Would you be willing to engage shareholders in that process?

MURDOCH: No. Sorry, you have the right to vote us off the board if you don't like that.

Ahhh, dictatorship, ain't it wonderful? Hey, hey, hey, "fair and balanced", never doubt it.

Of COURSE there are no scandals...it's only a scandal if you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe...they never proved it, so of COURSE it wasn't a scandal!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2010 12:43 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
News Corp (NWSA.O) shareholders on Friday quizzed Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch and his fellow directors over the process by which the company makes donations to political organizations.

The directors faced several questions at the company's annual general meeting from individual shareholders and shareholder activists about a recent decision to donate $1 million each to the Republican Governors Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The gifts are being made in the run-up to U.S. congressional mid-term elections on Nov 2.

Murdoch said he and the board believed the donation was made in the "best interest of the company."

"We believe it is in the interest of the company and the country that there be a fair amount of change in Washington, D.C.," he said.

Shareholder activist groups including The Nathan Cummings Foundation have criticized the recent donations. In a letter to the board on Oct. 11 the foundation said the decision was "troubling".

"The issue of corporate political spending is particularly sensitive for media companies given the public's expectation that they provide objective news coverage," the letter said

Murdoch also said the decision had "nothing to do with the editorial or journalism of the company." While he accepted the size of the gifts was "unusual," he said it was unlikely to be repeated.

Rod Eddington, who is News Corp's lead director, said he understood the concerns about a need for transparency and that the decision to make the donations only came after the board took advice from management.

News Corp's influence in politics in the United States and the United Kingdom through its media outlets has often been a controversial issue with many of Murdoch's adversaries.

His bid to buy back the 61 percent of UK satellite TV provider BSkyB (BSY.L) News Corp doesn't already own is currently being challenged by rival media companies. They are calling on the British government to review the bid because they said it would give News Corp too much dominance in the UK media landscape.

The UK tabloid Daily Mirror reported on Friday that Murdoch had met with British Prime Minister David Cameron for 45 minutes just 24 hours after the Conservative Party leader took office in May.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1519690120101015
Quote:
Murdoch also indicated that shareholders would not be engaged in selecting recipients of donations, and that if shareholders disagreed with directors' decisions, "you have the right to vote us off the board."

When asked specifically about his widely reported comment that News Corp.'s donation to the RGA was a result of his friendship with former Fox News employee and current GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, Murdoch said "I didn't say it had nothing to do with News. Corp. I did make a foolish throwaway line saying -- I was trying to -- candidate Kasich who used to work for us for a number of years."

Eddington told a representative from the Nathan Cummings Foundation -- which sent a letter to the board of directors earlier this week calling for full disclosure of News Corp.'s political contributions -- that their proposal would be reviewed and that News Corp. would "act expeditiously."
Quote:
MLP STOCKHOLDER: And regarding the potential reputational risk for giving such a sizeable contribution to the U.S. Chamber, which is involved in multiple scandals right now?

MURDOCH: There are no scandals, there are only allegations, and you should not be stating that as fact.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: The scandals are a fact. I mean, they're being played out in the headlines every day, so --

MURDOCH: No, any allegations, I'm sorry.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: If it's playing out in the headlines, I would argue that that is in fact a scandal, and I'd just, all I would really like to know is what the board's process is in weighing the reputational risk involved. I take your point about the Wall Street Journal piece today, and I welcome that news, but I would like to know how the board evaluated the reputational risk there. .... It's particularly troubling to shareholders that, in particular, the U.S. Chamber contribution was only learned of by shareholders because of a leak to the press. Would the board consider much broader disclosure around shareholder -- around political spending?

MURDOCH: We've considered it from time to time. I don't believe we'll [inaudible] it again, but we'll see.

MLP STOCKHOLDER: Would you be willing to engage shareholders in that process?

MURDOCH: No. Sorry, you have the right to vote us off the board if you don't like that.
Ahhh, dictatorship, ain't it wonderful? Hey, hey, hey, "fair and balanced", never doubt it.

Of COURSE there are no scandals...it's only a scandal if you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe...they never proved it, so of COURSE it wasn't a scandal!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

....and Barry got mega bucks from Wall Street big shots and George Soros.

Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

He who controls information, controls the world. Literally, it would seem.

For those of you against government intervention, laws and limits on free market, how do you prevent the corporate power mongers from taking over the world?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well Magons, at least here in the US, such proponents never, EVER wanna discuss how the balance of power was permanently shifted in corporate favor by another kind of government intervention, namely that every single time union labor started winning against the corpies, they called in the freakin us military to "restore order" and put the peons in their place - never was this more clear than at Blair Mountain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Which, by the way, they now want removed as a historical site... so they can STRIP MINE IT.

How offensive to me personally that happens to be, is something beyond words, cause the run up to that fight involved one of my ancestors, one Sid Hatfield, taking on the company goons and being assassinated for his troubles, with again, the willful complicity of most of the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan_Massacre

Eventually it became clear that union labor would never be able to hold the corpies accountable because to do so would require them to not only defeat the corpie goons, but also the combined might of the entire government military, and if you COULD do that, why not just take over ?

Seriously, find me ONE example where the Gov didn't come in completely on the corporate side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes
(Hint: There isn't one.)

Another good example is that the USDOJ was in fact founded on the base of the Pinkerton strike breakers, to the point where some time later it was necessary to write the Anti-Pinkerton Act, something which Blackwater is, and has always been, in complete and flagrant violation of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency#Gover
nment_work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act

As far as the USDOJ goes, well, starting with such a corrupt organisation, one can say that apple never did fall too far from the tree.

Soooo, essentially, there's never *BEEN* a "Free Market" here in the States, it's just been Gov approved exploitation and monopolies, really, and corporate dynasties in an incestuous Corp-Gov relationship that borders on a de-facto aristocracy, Hughes, Carnegie, Hearst, etc.

So whenever they talk about "Free" markets here in the States, they mean "Free" for THEM, free labor, free rides, and free to exploit and abuse as they will, with the government actively protecting them from the consequences of their actions, like having their offices torched in response.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2010 3:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
....and Barry got mega bucks from Wall Street big shots and George Soros.

Mr. Soros has contributed around $3.5 million to individual Democrats and Democratic organizations - including some, like Moveon.org, which are pretty much outside any contribution limit controls.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/george_soros.asp

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2010 5:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Oops. I made an error on Mr. Soros' contributions. I was just looking at contributions sent directly to candidates or party organizations that he had to report.

Per Opensecrets.org, he contributed $23.7 million to 527 organizations in the 2004 election cycle, another $3.5 million in the 2006 election cycle, and $5 million in the 2008 cycle.

Over $32 million in "soft" money in four years.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.php?cycle=2004

By comparison, all Chambers of Commerce in the US have contributed $16.2 million to 527 organizations since 1969.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/lookup.php?cycle=2010&donor=chamber%20
of%20commerce&page=1

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2010 3:50 PM

DREAMTROVE

Magon,

Govt. (in the US) *created* the corporate control, and continues to do so through its exclusive licensure, subsidy and selective regulation, attacking any real competition to the corporation mega monopolies.

Our govt. gave exclusive license to broadcast, gave, I mean handed, not even sold, to initially three, but later a couple more, major corporations. First (ABC, NBC and CBS) then (Fox, Time/Warner/Turner/CNN, CBS/Viacom and Disney/ABC)

By regulating, they have broken up small companies which would oppose these conglomerates.

Now, they want to hand the same power to them over the control of which companies gets how much bandwidth on the internet.

License, subsidy and regulation are the selective allowing, supporting, and undermining and or banning of companies selectively from an industry on the whim of the govt. which in turn is owned by the corporations with the most money.

In such a market, would I oppose such a system? Of course I would.

Frem

Do you honestly think there is a separation between the two? The govt. is the sole endorser of the absurd rights of the corporation. Its only regulatory act is to grant legitimacy to abhorrent behavior while banning any other influence. The absurd situation in mining exists because of the govt's endorsement of outdated mineral rights contracts signed by people who are long dead, and have been reinterpreted by the supreme court to give the corporations absolute power.

Without the backing of the govt., these corporate claims would mean nothing, and these corporations would be trespassers, who had simply come to destroy the land, homes, and ultimately, people of the mountains by poisoning their water, and IMHO the people would have every right to shoot these corporate thugs where stood, and the only thing stopping them from doing so is the wholehearted endorsement by the federal govt. of said mining corporations to rape, pillage and kill.

Again, I say it is regulation which *created* this problem, not which stops it. In fact, it does nothing to stop it. It has no interest in stopping it.

After all, who do you think those regulators are? My uncle is one, now, though not on this, he's on offshore drilling. They hired him for the EPA regulation of offshore drilling after the Gulf Oil Spill because of his resume: As a live long lobbyist for the Oil Industry. My only hope is that he disappoints his former employers (same actual people as his new employers). But if he does, of course, they'll fire him.

Corporations don't rule govt. by fluke. They created govt. for this purpose. After all, we all know where our flag came from, it's nothing american, it's the the flag of the British East India Company.

ETA: Frem, I never got your take on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2010 4:34 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

But if you want to see the champs of 527 contributors, it's the unions.

Service Employees International Union alone has given $10.7 million for the 2010 cycle, gave $36.7 million for the 2008 cycle, $32.9 million for 2006, and $53.3 million for 2004. That's well over $130 million in six years. check out the other unions, and it's a lot more.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.php?cycle=2010

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2010 8:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Frem and Dreamtrove,

While I see your point(s) that corporate power and government power often have a symbiotic relationship with one another, I'd dispute the cause and effect that you both seem to be assuming...that government intervention led to corporate power.

I believe that power tends to naturally be pulled into the hands of the few, rather than be distributed equally. We can see that throughout history in most of the world, be it through governing agencies or bodies of commerce. The rich and powerful become richer and more powerful until something puts a circuit breaker on that...in many cases, war, natural disaster, social upheavel, revolution, but as time goes on the old order will always re-establish itself. Laws and regulations are actually one means of preventing power from being held by too few, as in your own Constitution, which frames possible government (but not corporate) control. But just because laws and regulation are able to do this, doesn't mean they always will.

That's why a libertarian view of the world always has me a little perpelexed - the optimism in how people would act - backed up by so few examples.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

My take on it, as it were, is always the same, regarding both and other issues.

When you give one person power over the lives of multiple other people, without their consent, abuse follows naturally as day follows dawn.

I did not "consent" to this motherfucking government, and all it's stupid rules and laws and bullshit, nor did I "consent" to the arbitrary standards of this fucked up society, just by having the fortune to pop out of my mother here, you know - hell I didn't even EXIST when most of those rules, standards and laws were created, and I most CERTAINLY did not pre-emptively agree from the womb to assume the debt of the assholes before me, who cast it upon me without so much as a blink!

So then, wherefore consent ?

No, I did not consent, whatever, which is why, absent sufficient force to compel obedience, I have no respect for those things, and even in the presence of that force, I will still strive to subvert whatever bit of it I please, however I please to do so.

Cause that's the thing with Force - which is what all this boils down to, sure, it might work, when you're there, when you're watching...

But it utterly ensures OTHER consequences the moment you blink.

I am an Anarchist, is what it is - the only time my position isn't bloody obvious is when folk don't understand enough about that philosophy to figure it out.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:41 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I see your point, Frem, but I don't just understand or believe that it could work the way that libertarians appear to think it would. I think power would concentrate in the hands of the few in the absence of any other system and then the rights of the individual would be crushed, possibly more than now.

Out of curiosity, Frem, do you feel that way also about the constitution? You didn't consent to those rules?

NB Really just curious here, not wanting to start a flame war or be rude.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:09 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Rupert Murdoch Pays Prostitute $1-million, Hillary Says Thank You
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_060717_rupert_murdoch
_hoste.htm

Rupert Murdoch bucks New York Post, donates to Hillary Clinton
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/02/04/2008-02-04_rupert_murdoch
_bucks_new_york_post_donat-2.html

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

Could Rupert Murdoch make Hillary Clinton the next president?
http://dailyreckoning.com/could-rupert-murdoch-make-hillary-clinton-th
e-next-president/

Rupet Murdoch married to Communist Party member Deng Wen Di, his kids are citizens of Communist China and they live in Communist China
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7k1TCL5MPTsAUCtXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&
fr=yfp-t-701&p=wendi+deng&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top

Yes, Sir Rupert is Liberal scum.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

Magon

Not symbiotic nearly as much as mutually parasitic. And while I would say that corporate vs. govt. power is a chicken and the egg type question, Frem's right: Outside of any other guidance, govt. has more raw power. This is because it has not only rules, but weapons and morons with weapons to back up those rules. Without govt., corporations would abuse power, but as much. Corporations still rely on us to select them, both as employees, and as customers. Yet for some reason there's still Walmart. But then again, Walmart doesn't start wars.

Frem,

The source of their power is economic, so it would make sense for the nature of the resistance to be economic as well. I suspect you can follow this one through to a logical conclusion or two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Out of curiosity, Frem, do you feel that way also about the constitution? You didn't consent to those rules?

NB Really just curious here, not wanting to start a flame war or be rude.

No worries on my behalf - I get where you're coming from.

Now, I disagreed with the Constitution, this requires more than a little explaining...

See, in school our so-called "History" class taught us that the Federalist Papers were a mere explaination of events handed down generously to us common folk from our "betters" to explain the necessity and logic of that document.

Not ONE SINGLE MENTION of any opposition to it, or the Antifederalists was ever present in our lesson plan, and being a curious sort, and having recently gotten my hands on a full set of used encylopedia brittanica, which I spent all day carrying home from a yard sale, courtesy of my mothers support of my self-education...

When I found out just how deeply I was being LIED TO about american history I kinda went berserk over it, resulting in one of the most exciting, interesting, and confrontational "history" classes ever - only reason the teacher didn't boot me is that this got the other students all riled up and involved, which improved their grades substantially.

I used to carry the entire collection of both sets of papers on a pair of floppies, in fact, and they currently reside on my desk in both flashdrive and CD-R formats.

So, I was very much of the Antifederalist leaning, and still am, in that the proposed Constitution was a deeply flawed document which would lead to a rapacious, all devouring Federal Government, which it more or less has - and despite all the shoveljob of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Adams and the rest, this was sort of the intention from the beginning, as evidenced by the "Alien and Sedition Acts", the first attempt at some bullshit like the Patriot Act - so the agenda was pretty damned clear from the beginning, and Pat Henry at every turn and corner called them out on it.

So, no - I did not agree.
HOWEVER...

What the Constitution is, isn't a list of rules and regs for us, it's a structure of (almost entirely ignored) LIMITS on Federal power, if it's not explicitly given to em in that document, they got no damn right to do it (See Also: 10th Amendment) and as such I found it more tolerable than not having any limits on a Government which was untrustworthy and a de-facto aristocracy even then.

Aside to that, I got sent to the office for "counselling" cause when asked what kind of government we had on a test, I put "Totalarian Oligarcy", which seemed the most fitting description of what we have from the list in the textbook - children have the advantage of seeing through all the little lies we feed ourselves to make it through the day sane, and half of public school in america is pounding those lies home, with a vengance, even if it destroys the kids.

Anyhows, I would take a weak and ignored set of limits over no limits at all, and the Constitution is my minimum compliance for satisfaction, you see ?

But there's another factor too - when I joined the armed forces, I swore an Oath - something which due to my spiritual/philosophical beliefs, I take WAY more serious than most folk.

Quote:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

They even used a modified Oath ending "Upon my name and honor" instead of "So help me God" cause of my variant beliefs.

So my loyalty is not to any administration, not to the military, but to the Constitution and the principles upon which it is based, agains ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

Thus I have zero loyalty to any president, any military officer, who has violated or acted in contravention of the Constitution in letter or spirit - and when they handed me a survey asking me if I would sieze arms from american citizens, and/or shoot them dead if they refused to hand them over (a clear violation of the Second Amendment), and then informed me my future career depending on giving the "right" answer....

I told them that should I EVER be ordered to do that, I would immediately arrest and detain the officer in question, using whatever force was necessary to do so, and at first opportunity hand them over to the civil authorities in accordance with UCMJ 807.7.b - this was emphatically NOT the answer they were looking for, and I was rather brusqely informed that my military "career" was for all intents and purposes, over.

At which point I considered them Domestic Enemies, worked against them to soak them for certain additional training, and when they broke my contract, buggered off with some certain of their personnel for my own purposes.

So.. while I did not initially agree to the Constitution, I was willin to accept it as a minimum standard when nothing else presented itself, and one reason my elopement didn't cause a lot more trouble than it did, is because it's well known even to folk I consider bitter enemies that I am loyal beyond death to the IDEA, the CONCEPT, of "America" however badly we express it, or fail to live up to it, and orders or not, I do work toward the protection, advancement, and preservation of those ideals.
(Which is, in a sense, why they let it go instead of doin something about it.)

Even so, I am at heart an Anarchist - cause you'll notice that every time those rules and restrictions get in the way of the powers that be, they simply ignore them, yet we are subject to them always, even when ridiculous, inapplicable or counterproductive ?
In a land FOUNDED on the notion that all people are equal ?

Not on your life.

We have those rights only so far as we're willing to ENFORCE them, and while a direct, violent conflict is a nice pipe dream, events like Blair Mountain, Waco, and so many others show pretty plainly what the end result of that is.

And so, I do to them what Mikhail Kutusov did to Napolean Bonaparte - refuse to fight them toe to toe, giving them no chance to squish me like a bug, while inflicting every cut I can unto them, any way I can, to wear them down, tire them out, and eventually weaken them for reform or replacement.

I hope that answers your question in detail ?

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:17 AM

DREAMTROVE

Of course, the constitution is not a sacred document of freedom, it is a statement of totalitarian rule, granting the govt. full control over military, financial and legal matters, even creating a theocratic elite dubbed ominously "The Supreme Court" Which actually is more of a theocracy than the Court of the supreme leader in Iran. At least the latter is elected.

But what you mean is the Bill of Rights, which was fought for by the people, in a revolution, and the King was forced to sign it in 1689 to avoid being executed. As a British colony, we inherited it. So did Australia. In 1789, our founding fathers had to fight to hold on to it, which they did by amending it to the constitution, much to the chagrin of the federalists who thought up the constitution specifically with the intent of replacing the articles of confederation and to get rid of the bill of rights. The supreme court was created for the same purpose, making it an inherently evil institution, as it exists solely to subvert the will of the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE