What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
53 Comments
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33Remove corporate person hood and all these companies that have behaved unethically can be sued, broken down, absorbed. Their directors jailed.
Can you imagine how you could improve medical facilities and pay for servicemen if you broke down Halliburton which bleeds off defense money and put it back directly into the military. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies that have profiteered and driven up insurance cost would willingly pay for an unprecedented universal health service just to keep their heads. And then after all that we could go after the biggest private company of them all: the Federal Reserve.
And if this sounds very 'socialist' remember if you remove all subsidy and force corporations to be more accountable it will allow the market place to become open to entrepreneurs and local business men who have been previously out played by corporate price wars. A true free market is a market without subsidy. - hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Exposed...the real reason why we invaded Iraq. The Bush Administration is nothing more than a giant payola scheme funneling taxpayer money to their cronies.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16good ol' USA LLC.
- antineocon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Welcome to the United Corporations of America--- Bienvenidos
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Wait - wait, this doesn't make any sense! We were told if conservatives took office they'd reduce the size of government and spend less money!
This can't be true. I'm just going to do what I do with all of these stories: turn the channel to Paris Hilton and see if she's screwed somebody else today. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Behold, the Bush regime's legacy: The infiltration of private interests in every sector of our government, feeding off of the middle class's tax burden like leeches.
- fancypantscz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8If I understand you correctly, you judge the newsworthiness of information based on who or what source presents that information and not on the merits of the information itself. I think that the majority of us here know that if you trust any single news source to present the whole truth about what is happening in the world today you are in essence surrendering your personal liberties and allowing some editor or television executive to decide what you believe. However, to discount all information presented by any single source simply because all information presented by that source is of one particular political slant is in fact a greater surrender of personal liberties because you are allowing a political ideology determine what you believe to be true. I can not think of a more corrosive and abusive ideological institution on which to base your understanding of the world than politics. Now if you are already aware that you are too incompetent to judge for yourself the merits of a particular piece of information, I understand why you prejudge information based on its source. However, if you are capable of independent thought and able to construct an argument you could challenge the validity of the actual content presented by any new source. And I for one wish you would do that because I am just as skeptical of information on TP as I am of any blog. If you did contribute some contradicting information, we would all benefit from your unique addition to our knowledge pool. But unfortunately, as it stands, you are simply asking us to prejudge information in the same manner as you do and this amounts to a degradation of the level of debate in this community. If you are unable to construct an independent argument, stop clogging up the interwebtubes with your noise and go back to watching TV where you can easily insulate yourself from unwanted sources of information. Your commentary here is making us all dumber.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Ike warned us about this. However I think that war profiteering != to shadow government.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I love the comment "It's corruption and Un-American"
***** Sir, you should see your countries own history! Corruption is Perfectly American! - smackedup, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9 "Halliburton"
"At the end of 2005, Cheney’s stock options were valued at more than $8 million, a 3,281 percent gain from 2004"
Is it not a crime to give contracts to companies that you directly profit from? - scorchedearth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The Military Industrial Congressional Complex
- JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Yay privatized military!
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I'm sorry, thats ***** ridiculous. His "charity" agreement is nothing more than a money-laundering scheme to hide the origin of his blood money. And what about his KBR stock? I guarantee that money isn't going to charity.
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Does anyone have a link to the GAO document in question?
- crazybugger, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9You should be watching the documentary, "The secret government"
- ruley, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I've got a big bucket of dumbass for you, do you think you carry anymore?
its just posted at TP, the study was done by The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has a link to the .gov site - MonsterChaOS, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5When Cheney becomes emperor he'll need an army... Can you say blackwater?
- scorchedearth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Excellent statement albionshores. In all the talk of free markets we hear, no one ever brings up these simple facts and how these conditions don't exist in our supposedly 'free market.'
- smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Treasonous but not unexpected, nor new....
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm - kkonarik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ask all our Reps in the government (for the people) that protect us. We soooo need to take this country back.
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I hear torches and pitchforks work pretty well for that. I for one am just waiting for the movement to begin.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I agree. Diane Fienstein should stop giving no-bid contracts to companies owned by her husband.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4unbeholden to posse comitatus
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Absolutely right. Halliburton is a prime example.
- venuspcs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6A-*****-men
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Struck a nerve with you, didn't it? Maybe that's because you republicans today are more fascist than conservative afterall.
Freedom is free... I don't need to ask for it, god gave it to me at birth, but you want me and others around you to believe we owe something, when we don't owe *****! Those trying to take away our freedoms happen to be the very folks you voted for (Republicans) all out of FEAR! Coming from you, the word "freedom" is just another flag made in China, FAKE. - Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The clincher is the third world and the UN. Look at the money given in financial aid and tax relief and more again from defense when unstable areas collapse or when environmental disasters occur.
All the third world, specifically Africa, call out for is for us to drop our subsidies. They can't compete with that sort of opposition. It keeps them poor! Drop the subsidies and they will claw their own way out of dependency, make themselves rich, feed themselves. Meanwhile if our farmers don't grow wheat because we buy it from 'x' country then so what, let them grow bio fuels or even hemp.
Not only will you save all that money from giving them tax relief, you help them out AND you get to open new American textile energy and agricultural markets because of it. - 2012not2112, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Cheney's Haliburton. He is above the law and controls both Congress and White house. Heck, the Shadow Government attacked us on 911. Blamed it on a made-up terrorist cell Al-Qaida which means toilet in Arabic. They even made Bush's old business partners brother the patsy, Osama!
- shadowspawn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There were two jobs I could've gone over there for. One for running simple fibre and copper: $175k a year, tax free. The second, I can drive a commercial truck up to around 18 tons in 3 states; that one was worth $225k a year. I have to pay for some things (food, airfare) but that's about it. Housing and protection are provided by the government.
I'm telling you, it burned me up for about 3 months to make that decision. I didn't take it. Out of eight of us who had the offer (all friends, all different companies but had the same friend who held a contract-for-hire position), 5 took it.
We drank heavily at bars debating it, but it was more or less a silent debate.
How the hell do you refuse money like that?
I'm telling you, it's hard. But my father taught me not to suckle on the government's tit. - hotsake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If this is news to anyone, welcome to pulling your damn head out of the sand.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's really simple: Who benefits financially and is there a financial agenda involved? We already know this, just too many dumb ***** don't seem to care or get it.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually the media is PRIVATELY OWNED. That means, they air what they want when they want, and so far they have proven beyond a doubt that they are more interested in not making waves for their business interests at the expense of an uniformed or misinformed public.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The same poster does this ***** everytime ... talk about "automatic".
- hotsake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Do you even know anything about this issue? These private security companies do not have to follow US military laws. The have carte blanche to use tactics not approved or followed by the military. Privatization certainly is a good idea, but never in a warzone...
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You wish it were a non-story.... we understand you perfectly.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1JFK, excerpt inaugural address, 19610120:
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. - stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Private army.... big picture: $$$$$
Did you read the news today? They aren't helping, they are hurting our military by taking our tax money for what our volunteer military already did or a lot less. This is about profit and not about national pride. Big picture, pie in the sky *****! - amoutbound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Ike warned USa " should be a bumper sticker on every American car.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Republican neo-nut jobs want everything to be privatized even when it's been proven to fail time and again. Profits trump efficiency and fairness to the consumer. The end game is absolute wealth and power in the hands of the few, while tax paying citizens are cut out of the picture altogether. In the World of the corporate elite, people, who by default are their government, lose. Just look at our private health insurance industry. Next water will be privatized, where as it once was FREE!
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Many of those are not true about the US. For example, the mass media is not controlled, it is just spineless. In true fascism, the state itself would run the media, and all alternate media sources would be banned. Also, I do not see things such as "disdain for intellectuals or the arts", or "rampant sexism". However, we definitely do have things like "obsession with national security" and "disdain for the recognition of human rights".
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Non-story. Criminalization of war-profiteering and conflicts of interest that require war to catalyze. You can't just go charging everyone with every little crime, so we should arrest more potheads to balance the crimes that our Leaders won't be charged with, for interests of national security. That's the kind of balance that keeps the riff-raff from trying to use protections that they'd have to overextend their credit to afford. We should pay Cheney for bolstering the system - just a little each, taken from our paychecks. You could call it a Freedom Incentive or something that even the liberals couldn't criticize.
Besides, Cheney hasn't been compensated for giving America targets for their spare ordnance. The painstaking care he's taken to point America's arsenal at only the meatiest and Muslimest of targets just speaks volumes about Cheney's discretion. A lot of people are invested in Halliburton, and without continued orders for weapon systems, security, infrastructure construction and prison management, those poor fellows would lose money - and that would just defeat the purpose.
Anyhow, listen up you liebuhrul reasonofascists, we're on to your little scheme to use fact and data to persuade the weak. It's ok, we'll protect you from Mr. bin Laden and his amazing abilities to smite tall buildings, change the bone-structure of his face, evade the world's combined security forces and perform Atheist weddings in Jane Fonda's shrine to Pol Pot at the refurbished Neverland ranch. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3on the contrary, there is extensive basis to consider this a corrupt scheme to enrich those involved. More efficient? That's laughable. Bush appointed his corporate buddies to run FEMA, do you call the destruction of New Orleans "efficient?" Maybe if you are the privte security firm Blackwater, who was given a no-bid contract to guard FEMA facilities after Katrina - and who overcharged the US taxpayer millions for their services. Speaking of overcharges, practically every private company in Iraq has been convicted of ripping off the taxpayer (efficiently), but the Bush regime doesn't care - they are STILL awarding Halliburton/KBR/CACI/Titan no-bids. The interrogators in the Abu Ghraib photos were working for a private contractor (CACI), do you consider torture to be "efficient?"
Speaking of no-bid contracts, how does that fit into your grand plan of "market competition?"
The profit motive should NEVER be involved in warfare, what about that is so hard to understand by you bizarre corporatist/fascist/capitalists? - biglie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I can confirm this. A coup d'état is absolutely possible, from all levels of the military.
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I was trying to be sarcastic, but once Digg mangled my formatting, it just looked like a boring mono-paragraph rant.
Read again with tongue in cheek. - laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Digg's comment system is pretty liberal with my formatting. It's a conspiracy! Fight the liberal media!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7The American people don't care, congress doesn't care. I don't see the point in digging these stories anymore. There is no hope there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Give up its over, the NWO is already here, its been here. Think progress? About as usefull as msnbc. ***** a bunch of leftist or righist, the game is fixed. Its been fixed. The monentary system / federal reserve bank shows the corruption. Yet again, the biggest problem in america is abortion and the border to stop the terrorist. Oh and maybe i can pay for someone elses health care. A universal health care paid by tax payers used by people that dont work or illegal or soon to be legal amnesty immagrants. The people are done for. Want to be a patriot?
Revolt. It is long past time. - shadowspawn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@kkonarik
Dug you back up, but people might take you the wrong way.
They are not exactly for or against.
You take a private contractor job, you get them much needed supplies and communication. It's a weird stance if you were to take a private sector job over there: on one side, they have to protect your ass and they will tend to hate for you for it. On the other side, you get them what they need the most of: communications, mail, things from their home and families. Things that they can't get through the normal channels they are committed within, but they become more useful, in their eyes. You are something to protect, because the private sector IS doing more.
I have a friend who's working at a company that builds HUGE oil rigs here in Texas. But instead of drilling for oil, they are shipping over these huge machines for drilling for WATER, not OIL. The military loves watching that stuff come over, because it shows that what we are doing isn't just for oil, it's for not only the people, but for them as well. The Army Corps of Engineers has their hands tied because of funding... but Iraq needs the infrastructure and will gladly pay for it.
It's very, very complex... but unless people get their ***** together and just remember that it's our fault, it's up to us to fix things that we had a part in breaking... - shadowspawn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Our military can't make money, that's not it's purpose. You do have to separate the two in a situation like this, remember each purpose. The military has their job, private companies have theirs. And by the way, privatization is not exactly political... they are HELPING the people there. In some ways your tax dollars are helping those people over there. Face it, for whatever reason we went over there... there's money to be had. And it's not oil, not some big game of RISK. We help them, we help allot more than just us.
Have faith in the big picture. - kkonarik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I wonder if the military folk would be with us or against us?
- captainmrg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Most would.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is