It couldn't possibly be that those bills are better crafted, or better address an actual issue though, right?
There are plenty of qualified folks suggesting legislation on all manner of topics. Only those topics that help the donor class get consideration. Take ALEC, for a good example.
Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?
"We?" Most dismissive as a rhetorical device, implying a sense of condescension on your part. Quite frankly, it's an attempt to goad me into a bit of a snit so you don't have to defend your indefensible position. Someone with a better position to defend wouldn't have to stoop to such a cheap trick. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Jeff. Tsk, tsk.
That out of the way, I could look through an archive of podcasts from NPR and find it eventually. Planet Money, This American Life or On The Media would be where I would start.
The lobbyist in question brought some petitioners to the office of a congressman. The Congressman asked to see the lobbyist privately before he saw the petitioners, noting that he had called his campaign staff and was having trouble understanding why he should listen to them. The implication was pointed; they didn't fill coffers, so I should listen why?
The lobbyist has since gone on to work for removing money from politics. That is all I remember.
Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence.
People sometimes wonder why fears of a returning feudal state still lurk in the hearts of people actually watching what is happening today. Your comment reveals that there are people out there who long for putting the vassals to the whip while wearing the purple of the privileged.
I walked through the Battle of Seattle in '99. It was most instructive. Yes, there were a few isolated acts of vandalism; but every act was covered literally by at least seven cameras snapping away. The result? When played back to back on every news station and paper, it looked like those ten or so really smashed windows were the entire city, when just about nothing else had been touched.
You know what else aligns with income distribution? In this country, the fact that daddy was rich, too. So few rise through the ranks breaking this trend that those few are put on the front stage and made to prance like show ponies to support the myth that this country still allows for Horatio Alger spunk that leads from rags to riches. That myth is important to the folks who decide what is news just like broken windows in Seattle. If people swallow it, they don't notice how rich the owners are and how conservative their supposedly liberal media actually is.
Your proof, frankly, is lacking.
You provide no proof whatsoever, only declarations without a shred of evidence backing it, and have the gall to question my proof? No, sir. Your argument is, as just about always, devoid of any shred of evidence or existence in the real world. It's about time you woke up to that sad, sad fact, or break out of the tightly-locked vault in which you keep it some evidence of your own.
Put up or shut up.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 1/11/13 01:20 (UTC)There are plenty of qualified folks suggesting legislation on all manner of topics. Only those topics that help the donor class get consideration. Take ALEC, for a good example.
Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?
"We?" Most dismissive as a rhetorical device, implying a sense of condescension on your part. Quite frankly, it's an attempt to goad me into a bit of a snit so you don't have to defend your indefensible position. Someone with a better position to defend wouldn't have to stoop to such a cheap trick. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Jeff. Tsk, tsk.
That out of the way, I could look through an archive of podcasts from NPR and find it eventually. Planet Money, This American Life or On The Media would be where I would start.
The lobbyist in question brought some petitioners to the office of a congressman. The Congressman asked to see the lobbyist privately before he saw the petitioners, noting that he had called his campaign staff and was having trouble understanding why he should listen to them. The implication was pointed; they didn't fill coffers, so I should listen why?
The lobbyist has since gone on to work for removing money from politics. That is all I remember.
Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence.
People sometimes wonder why fears of a returning feudal state still lurk in the hearts of people actually watching what is happening today. Your comment reveals that there are people out there who long for putting the vassals to the whip while wearing the purple of the privileged.
I walked through the Battle of Seattle in '99. It was most instructive. Yes, there were a few isolated acts of vandalism; but every act was covered literally by at least seven cameras snapping away. The result? When played back to back on every news station and paper, it looked like those ten or so really smashed windows were the entire city, when just about nothing else had been touched.
You know what else aligns with income distribution? In this country, the fact that daddy was rich, too. So few rise through the ranks breaking this trend that those few are put on the front stage and made to prance like show ponies to support the myth that this country still allows for Horatio Alger spunk that leads from rags to riches. That myth is important to the folks who decide what is news just like broken windows in Seattle. If people swallow it, they don't notice how rich the owners are and how conservative their supposedly liberal media actually is.
Your proof, frankly, is lacking.
You provide no proof whatsoever, only declarations without a shred of evidence backing it, and have the gall to question my proof? No, sir. Your argument is, as just about always, devoid of any shred of evidence or existence in the real world. It's about time you woke up to that sad, sad fact, or break out of the tightly-locked vault in which you keep it some evidence of your own.
Put up or shut up.