Crawford herself acknowledges this, arguing "America needs more people who can calmly and rationally oppose the free-marketeer rhetoric."

Crawford's sweeping indictment of big business is unlikely to find a sympathetic ear among conservatives or libertarians.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 17:44:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 17:06:

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 17:01:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:41:
I'm not, just tired of hearing how "for the US people" democrats are, when they're pretty much the exact polar opposite in reality.

Yes, just like republicans, or are we still pretending that they don't do the same crap? The Tea Party ones come in talking like they're different, but they're really just a lot dumber, and still want to violate the Constitution six ways from Sunday. The only expertise most congresspeople have is in the pandering department.

Not that most republicans are any better, I don't disagree there, but I think you're confused, it's the democrats that have issues with the 2nd amendment, and like to push through health care bills as a service from the government then pass it off as a tax to circumvent the constitution.

Obama took an oath to uphold it, and he's been pissing all over it every chance he gets since day one in office.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 17:01:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:41:

space admiral wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:15:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:06:

LittleMe wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:55:

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.

Well said! She's an opportunist looking to 'create jobs' regulating things when it wouldn't work and would cost a lot of money. I wonder what her conflicts of interests are in advocating further federal regulatory powers over the Internet when she herself was an adviser to Obama. Hmmmm. Let me guess... She wants an appointed job and to be the center of attention at dinner parties??

Oh hey a democrat wanting in increase government power. That never happens.

SMASH THE STATE!

hell yeh RollinChikn - i didnt know you were an anarchist?!

lets roll!

I'm not, just tired of hearing how "for the US people" democrats are, when they're pretty much the exact polar opposite in reality.

Yes, just like republicans, or are we still pretending that they don't do the same crap? The Tea Party ones come in talking like they're different, but they're really just a lot dumber, and still want to violate the Constitution six ways from Sunday. The only expertise most congresspeople have is in the pandering department.

space admiral wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:57:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:41:
I'm not, just tired of hearing how "for the US people" democrats are, when they're pretty much the exact polar opposite in reality.

fuck the US...

the people could be ok, but the govt is a diabolical scam

and the problem is that people cant live without the govt... they just cant take care of themselves on their own

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:41:

space admiral wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:15:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:06:

LittleMe wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:55:

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.

Well said! She's an opportunist looking to 'create jobs' regulating things when it wouldn't work and would cost a lot of money. I wonder what her conflicts of interests are in advocating further federal regulatory powers over the Internet when she herself was an adviser to Obama. Hmmmm. Let me guess... She wants an appointed job and to be the center of attention at dinner parties??

Oh hey a democrat wanting in increase government power. That never happens.

SMASH THE STATE!

hell yeh RollinChikn - i didnt know you were an anarchist?!

lets roll!

I'm not, just tired of hearing how "for the US people" democrats are, when they're pretty much the exact polar opposite in reality.

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:41:
I'm not, just tired of hearing how "for the US people" democrats are, when they're pretty much the exact polar opposite in reality.

space admiral wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:15:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:06:

LittleMe wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:55:

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.

Well said! She's an opportunist looking to 'create jobs' regulating things when it wouldn't work and would cost a lot of money. I wonder what her conflicts of interests are in advocating further federal regulatory powers over the Internet when she herself was an adviser to Obama. Hmmmm. Let me guess... She wants an appointed job and to be the center of attention at dinner parties??

Oh hey a democrat wanting in increase government power. That never happens.

SMASH THE STATE!

hell yeh RollinChikn - i didnt know you were an anarchist?!

lets roll!

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 16:06:

LittleMe wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:55:

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.

Well said! She's an opportunist looking to 'create jobs' regulating things when it wouldn't work and would cost a lot of money. I wonder what her conflicts of interests are in advocating further federal regulatory powers over the Internet when she herself was an adviser to Obama. Hmmmm. Let me guess... She wants an appointed job and to be the center of attention at dinner parties??

Oh hey a democrat wanting in increase government power. That never happens.

LittleMe wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:55:

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.

Well said! She's an opportunist looking to 'create jobs' regulating things when it wouldn't work and would cost a lot of money. I wonder what her conflicts of interests are in advocating further federal regulatory powers over the Internet when she herself was an adviser to Obama. Hmmmm. Let me guess... She wants an appointed job and to be the center of attention at dinner parties??

nin wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 15:23:
Back so soon?

space admiral wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 15:22:
I vote for CherryPope2000

light that smokestack, my brothas

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 10:30:
I'm looking forward to @NewPope

Rather than advocating a focus on constraining the power of broadband duopolists, she calls for a broad increase in government involvement in the communications industry. That approach didn't work very well the last time we tried it in the mid-20th Century. And it would likely work even worse today.