On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:52:52 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had
absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!


Isn't it interesting how we all KNOW how human nature works and we all
know that if someone gives someone else a ****load of money they
expect something in return AND that they will GET something in return.

It's been the cornerstone of human interactions since the dawn of time:
"I'll give you two apples for one fish!" etc. Yet somehow, when politicians
collect money that all that experience goes out the window.

Yet our politicians would lie to our faces saying they aren't swayed
by all that money that is the lifeblood of their election to office.

I read somewhere that Congressmen spend close to 50% of their time trying to
win the *next* election. In NJ some politicians are proposing bills trying
to force Christie (and all future candidates for Prez) to resign if he runs
for President. They say they are being cheated because he spends less and
less time in New Jersey these days because he's crossing the country looking
for "support" (read dollars) for his Presidential campaign.

If they will lie about something so patently obvious you know they
will lie about pretty much anything.

Bingo! It is a pretty sad realization that the relationship between voter
and politician is built on such a humongous lie. I once heard a Congressman
(actually woman) say: "Since BOTH sides donate money to buy influence, it
all evens out in the wash." Maybe, maybe not.

Remember when copyrights expired after a while?

Disney hired themselves a politician (Ernest Hollings) so receptive to
giving them rights to Mickey Mouse in near-perpetuity that his nickname
became "Senator Disney." The Founding Fathers wanted that term to be 14
years, with an additional 14 years if the author were still alive. After 28
years, they assumed you'd had your chance to exploit your creation, and now
it belonged to all the people. That was part of the quid pro quo of
granting government protection. More importantly, with limited terms we
*should* never end up with a system of hereditary privilege, like the
printers guilds of Renaissance England, who tied up rights to dead authors
and tightly controlled what could or could not be printed and who could or
could not use literary material. But the "limited" term specified in the
Constitution wasn't good enough for Disney. They wanted to control the
rights to Mickey Mouse *forever* and the Constitution be damned.

And now Disney tried firing American IT workers and bringing in foreigners
under the nakedly false pretense they can't find American workers to do the
job. Hey, Ghost of Walt, you FIRED the all the AMERICAN people who knew how
to do those jobs. C\/NTS! (Sorry, but this story REALLY made me angry. It
shows why immigration reform is such a disaster. Companies can't wait to
fire Americans to replace them with cheaper foreigners, even if they have to
tell naked lies to justify those firings.)

http://www.womansday.com/life/work-m...ancels-layoff/

. . . the news comes just months after 250 Disney workers were laid off
in the Parks and Resorts department. Many of those workers also had to train
their replacements, who came from India on temporary work visas known as
H-1B visas. News of those layoffs created an online uproar, with the
original New York Times report about it getting almost 3,000 comments.
WomansDay.com's story on the controversy got shared almost 8,000 times.

Without the internet to shame them, they would have gotten away with it!
The internet may also bring about a quick end to another new policy Disney
is trying to ram down employees' throats. They have required park
performers to promise to never reveal their roles:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015...ors-identities

The two-week-old written policy prevents actors from publicly revealing in
social media or traditional media which characters they play, according to
the union . . . The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell
somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already
know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's
out there." Does management *really* think this is classified
information? Are they *that* deluded that they think they can get away with
BS like this? WTF does knowing who's walking around in a Goofy suit at
Disneyworld harm Disney so much they've got to keep it secret unto pain of
termination?

How did we get to the point where speech is money, in is out, up is down and
government influence is peddled to the highest bidder?


You've probably seen this but if not it will provide more confirmation
for what you already know,

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy