Real Bipartisanship in the U.S.?!

February 18, 2010

It’s nice to see broad agreement on an important topic in America. Both left and right can finally agree on something. We all want to do away with government of the corporation by the corporation and for the corporation. 80% of all Americans oppose the latest SCOTUS ruling on corporate buying of politicians and the numbers are similar among democrats, independents, and republicans. The fact that the corps now have the ability to spend even more to buy politicians than they already did may make it very hard to do anything on this important issue. However, it’s nice to have something we can all rally around and agree upon regardless of our political labels.

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Thanks to Jan for passing this along.

This almost brings to mind that great day when Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all found common ground.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus Agree On Chicken


The Crap That Gets Bipartisan Support These Days …

September 14, 2007

Has everyone heard about this bill?

http://obama.senate.gov/press/061206-congress_passes/

If someone were to owe me money and be in bankruptcy proceedings, I would personally be very upset to hear that they were still giving money to charitable causes. At this point, I’d think they should be giving me the money. If I want to give it to the charity of my choosing, that is my business.

After all, I’m about to end up with 10 cents on the dollar and the bankrupt individual who owes me money is giving his/her money away. This is not a good thing.

Of course, just to add insult to injury, even though it seems to cover all types of charitable donations, it is couched in religious terms, violating separation of church and state. I was not aware that giving to religious organizations was in the bible or any other religious writing as a prerequisite for entry into heaven. If it is, then certainly this is a freedom of religion issue, and also probably time to look for a new religion.

This isn’t about leaving the bankrupt individual with enough to eat. This is about taking the money out of the creditor’s hands and giving it to a charity not of his/her own choosing.

Who’s standing up for the rights of the creditor to be able to pay his/her own bills with the money that is duly acknowledged to be owed to him/her?