Michael Moore rant on GM demise

[billcoe]

How is it Michael Moore finds it so easy to place 100% of the blame on the oil and large companies for everything and not give any blame where it is truly due? On the people! Joe average buying a Suburban or Expedition gets no credit for their personal (bad) choices?!!! This dumbf*ck is as bad as Rush Limbaugh, maybe worse, for the same reasons.

 

Of course, I agree with much of what else he says......guess that speaks poorly of me I suppose.

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=248

 

"The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline."

 

 

[kevbone]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=248[/url]

 

"The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline."

 

 

 

no truer words have been spoken.

[Water]

any significant media personality, especially political in nature, cannot rail too specifically on a segment of the population that likely encompasses part of their supporters. How many fans of Moore drive an SUV? What if a discussion on healthcare by media personality comes down to them ripping on fat people and smokers - they probably have quite a few fans who are fat and/or smoke. Everythings got to be broad and general, much easier to speak in terms of "theys and thems" and corporations. The all pervasive 'they'... it could be anyone.

 

but i hear you..and that statement about oil supplies, quite true..

 

[Stefan]

no trees, no oil, no food supplies.

 

The real cause is human population growth.

[JayB]

Demise? Hey - it's a brand new day over at GM, and you're the owner! The taxpayers have $50 billion riding on this experiment, so it's time to cross your fingers and hope for the best, particularly since the peak market-cap for GM was around $56 billion in the year 2000.

 

I certainly wish the government the best in its role as majority owner/regulator/UAW-parter, and hope that they'll be able to navigate through the seemingly impossible gauntlet of interest-conflicts that are inherent in such a role, much less in securing private bidders/financing after what happened to the bondholders vis-a-vis the unions in the restructuring that the Obama administration put together.

 

If the goal is to return GM to profitability someday, by selling cars at a price that exceeds the cost of building them, moves like limiting production-inputs from China in favor of UAW-controlled plants in the US, keeping small fuel-efficient cars built by the Opel division out of the US and replicating all of the tooling, etc necessary to build them here, etc seem like strange moves. However - I suspect that as owner/regulator/etc Congress will do what's necessary to motivate people to buy whatever GM produces - be it in the form of subsidies, tarriffs, tax-credits, etc - so I have no doubt that they'll find a way to keep vehicles moving out the door.

 

 

 

[JayB]

How is it Michael Moore finds it so easy to place 100% of the blame on the oil and large companies for everything and not give any blame where it is truly due? On the people! Joe average buying a Suburban or Expedition gets no credit for their personal (bad) choices?!!! This dumbf*ck is as bad as Rush Limbaugh, maybe worse, for the same reasons.

 

Of course, I agree with much of what else he says......guess that speaks poorly of me I suppose.

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=248

 

"The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline."

 

 

 

For some reason, Michael Moore made me think of something I read recently:

 

"When President Bush used to promote the notion of democracy in the Muslim world, there was a line he liked to fall back on: “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.” Are you quite sure? It’s doubtful whether that’s actually the case in Gaza and Waziristan, but we know for absolute certain that it’s not in Paris and Stockholm, London and Toronto, Buffalo and New Orleans. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make their own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think."

 

 

[Lars]

And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on

 

Um, what? They tore down every forest? Whatever...

Moore never did care for facts or reality, especially when they get in the way of his political beliefs.

[j_b]

How is it Michael Moore finds it so easy to place 100% of the blame on the oil and large companies for everything and not give any blame where it is truly due? On the people! Joe average buying a Suburban or Expedition gets no credit for their personal (bad) choices?!!! This dumbf*ck is as bad as Rush Limbaugh, maybe worse, for the same reasons.

[/i]

 

Oh please, joe average didn't spend billions in commercial propaganda every year to manipulate americans and convince soccer moms they needed one of those to drive the kids to school. Comparing Moore to Limbaugh is moronic. Moore defended every single point he made in his docs with data. Limbaugh is a lying PoS.

[j_b]

All this talk about not wanting to trade freedom for security must be the reason why JayB had nothing to say about 8 years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration to sell its wars OF terror.

[JayB]

All this talk about not wanting to trade freedom for security must be the reason why JayB had nothing to say about 8 years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration to sell its wars OF terror.

 

There's more than one way to make that exchange, no? There's an inherent tension between the desire for liberty and security that prompts everyone to make concessions, but I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

At least I'd like to think that it's the more brutal everyday realities that tempt people to make such exchanges that lead us to policies like, say, prohibition. I can understand how watching a heroin addict someone destroy themselves and make life hell for everyone around them would bring about a desire to have the government step in and make drugs disappear. I'm not sure what to make of people who find the prospect of having manufacturers say flattering things about their products - all of which have to comply with government standards for safety, etc - so terrifying that they want to hide under the government blankie, lest temptation get the better of them and they come home with a box of Calgon Bath Crystals that they really didn't need.

 

All of which makes DeTocqueville's comments on "What Sort of Despotism that Democratic Nations Have to Fear," in "Democracy in America" all the more prescient.

 

 

 

 

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

 

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

 

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

 

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

 

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain....

 

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."

 

 

 

Read the Whole Chapter...

[j_b]

less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times

 

the world wide economy cratering, people losing jobs by the millions, pensions, homes is everyday realities? what a joke!

 

what isn't permanent in the loss of civil liberties? the legacy of the red scare and its neutering of the opposition? the spying on peace groups? etc ... I think you are delusional.

 

 

[prole]

I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

Yeah, I mean Nazi Germany only lasted what, 10 or 12 years? National health care for every American could throw us into another dark age lasting centuries!

Edited June 2, 2009 by prole

[JayB]

less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times

 

the world wide economy cratering, people losing jobs by the millions, pensions, homes is everyday realities? what a joke!

 

what isn't permanent in the loss of civil liberties? the legacy of the red scare and its neutering of the opposition? the spying on peace groups? etc ... I think you are delusional.

 

 

When it comes to liberties forfeited for the prospect of greater security, I'm specifically thinking of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the undeclared naval conflict with France in 1798, Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, The Espionage and Sedition Acts during WW1, Japanese internment during WWII, etc. All were remedied by an appeal to founding principles after the risks and/or the public perception of them waned.

 

I clearly wasn't arguing that the loss of civil liberties can't be permanent, or that that's not a risk that we should be acutely aware of. What I was arguing was that, per policies like those embodied in the War on Drugs, liberty-for-security exchanges that have their basis in less dramatic restrictions of personal freedom in response to permanent, everyday realities like addiction, etc are more likely to persist indefinitely.

 

And, it's not as though the desire for the state to annex responsibility for everything from sobriety to whether or not consenting adults can exchange sex for money, to constraining the temptation to buy a given product represents something entirely novel that's come about suddenly in response to this particular economic crisis, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

I couldn't help but think of you when I read the following passage:

 

The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers...

 

 

 

[JayB]

I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

Yeah, I mean Nazi Germany only lasted what, 10 or 12 years? National health care for every American could throw us into another dark age lasting centuries!

 

Let's not pretend that a scheme that gave every American a voucher sufficient to purchase comprehensive coverage from private insurers is something that you'd be cool with.

 

After all, under such a scheme, private medical spending wouldn't be outlawed, and people would still be free to spend money on acne cream, boob-jobs, tooth-whitening, LASIK, and whatever else they deemed important and valuable by their own lights.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times

 

the world wide economy cratering, people losing jobs by the millions, pensions, homes is everyday realities? what a joke!

 

what isn't permanent in the loss of civil liberties? the legacy of the red scare and its neutering of the opposition? the spying on peace groups? etc ... I think you are delusional.

 

 

When it comes to liberties forfeited for the prospect of greater security, I'm specifically thinking of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the undeclared naval conflict with France in 1798, Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, The Espionage and Sedition Acts during WW1, Japanese internment during WWII, etc. All were remedied by an appeal to founding principles after the risks and/or the public perception of them waned.

 

Yes, you clearly weren't thinking about policies both official and unofficial that have been around for a long time.

 

I clearly wasn't arguing that the loss of civil liberties can't be permanent, or that that's not a risk that we should be acutely aware of. What I was arguing was that, per policies like those embodied in the War on Drugs, liberty-for-security exchanges that have their basis in less dramatic restrictions of personal freedom in response to permanent, everyday realities like addiction, etc are more likely to persist indefinitely.

 

BS. This is the quote you cited: "The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make their own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think."

 

And, it's not as though the desire for the state to annex responsibility for everything from sobriety to whether or not consenting adults can exchange sex for money, to constraining the temptation to buy a given product represents something entirely novel that's come about suddenly in response to this particular economic crisis, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

it is true that it is broader debate but you applied this notion to government participation in GM and invoked the "nagging difficulties of every life" (paraphrase) to address the response to an economic and environmental crisis of catastrophic proportions. And again (what is it 3rd or 4th time I have to explain to you?) it isn't a question of "constraining the temptation to buy a given product" but of making sure that people aren't the captives of snake oil salesmen who create needs by manipulating people emotions.

 

[Pete_H]

it isn't a question of "constraining the temptation to buy a given product" but of making sure that people aren't the captives of snake oil salesmen who create needs by manipulating people emotions.

 

But isn't that the foundation of our whole economic system?

[prole]

I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

Yeah, I mean Nazi Germany only lasted what, 10 or 12 years? National health care for every American could throw us into another dark age lasting centuries!

 

Let's not pretend that a scheme that gave every American a voucher sufficient to purchase comprehensive coverage from private insurers is something that you'd be cool with.

 

After all, under such a scheme, private medical spending wouldn't be outlawed, and people would still be free to spend money on acne cream, boob-jobs, tooth-whitening, LASIK, and whatever else they deemed important and valuable by their own lights.

 

Yes, let's take the focus away from your dumb original point for a moment. Given the ongoing track record of our corporate "citizens" and the single-minded focus of the health care industry on profit-taking, giving them corporate welfare to sustain the idiotic procedures you mentioned and subsidizing the R&D for the next great discovery in making old men's weenies hard again is decidedly not "something I'd be cool with".

[j_b]

it isn't a question of "constraining the temptation to buy a given product" but of making sure that people aren't the captives of snake oil salesmen who create needs by manipulating people emotions.

 

But isn't that the foundation of our whole economic system?

 

I think it is becoming the sole foundation of our economic system, but it doesn't have to be. Let the corporate media peddle its junk (within reason of course) but also enable a different media that will account for the entire communication needs in society (i.e. beyond the profit motive).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

the world wide economy cratering, people losing jobs by the millions, pensions, homes is everyday realities? what a joke!

 

 

 

CHICKEN LITTLE, THE SKY IS FALLLING!!! OH NOESSSSSSSSS!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

Yeah, I mean Nazi Germany only lasted what, 10 or 12 years? National health care for every American could throw us into another dark age lasting centuries!

 

Let's not pretend that a scheme that gave every American a voucher sufficient to purchase comprehensive coverage from private insurers is something that you'd be cool with.

 

After all, under such a scheme, private medical spending wouldn't be outlawed, and people would still be free to spend money on acne cream, boob-jobs, tooth-whitening, LASIK, and whatever else they deemed important and valuable by their own lights.

 

 

 

 

j_b just wants the US taxpayer to pay for his male enhancement surgery. 1 cm just ain't doing it for his boyfriend!

 

[JayB]

I'd argue that exchanges made on behalf of national security in times of war or when the country in question is under attack in some fashion - however regrettable - are less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times.

 

Yeah, I mean Nazi Germany only lasted what, 10 or 12 years? National health care for every American could throw us into another dark age lasting centuries!

 

Let's not pretend that a scheme that gave every American a voucher sufficient to purchase comprehensive coverage from private insurers is something that you'd be cool with.

 

After all, under such a scheme, private medical spending wouldn't be outlawed, and people would still be free to spend money on acne cream, boob-jobs, tooth-whitening, LASIK, and whatever else they deemed important and valuable by their own lights.

 

Yes, let's take the focus away from your dumb original point for a moment. Given the ongoing track record of our corporate "citizens" and the single-minded focus of the health care industry on profit-taking, giving them corporate welfare to sustain the idiotic procedures you mentioned and subsidizing the R&D for the next great discovery in making old men's weenies hard again is decidedly not "something I'd be cool with".

 

So we agree that for you it's not about everyone having health-care, it's about the government determining the minute details of who gets what health-care. Thanks for clearing that up.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Michael Moore is a fat fuck and a waste of skin.

[JayB]

less likely to be permanently compromise liberty than the desire to be protected and insulated from the everyday realities that can make life uncertain and hard even in the best of times

 

the world wide economy cratering, people losing jobs by the millions, pensions, homes is everyday realities? what a joke!

 

what isn't permanent in the loss of civil liberties? the legacy of the red scare and its neutering of the opposition? the spying on peace groups? etc ... I think you are delusional.

 

 

When it comes to liberties forfeited for the prospect of greater security, I'm specifically thinking of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the undeclared naval conflict with France in 1798, Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, The Espionage and Sedition Acts during WW1, Japanese internment during WWII, etc. All were remedied by an appeal to founding principles after the risks and/or the public perception of them waned.

 

Yes, you clearly weren't thinking about policies both official and unofficial that have been around for a long time.

 

I clearly wasn't arguing that the loss of civil liberties can't be permanent, or that that's not a risk that we should be acutely aware of. What I was arguing was that, per policies like those embodied in the War on Drugs, liberty-for-security exchanges that have their basis in less dramatic restrictions of personal freedom in response to permanent, everyday realities like addiction, etc are more likely to persist indefinitely.

 

BS. This is the quote you cited: "The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make their own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think."

 

And, it's not as though the desire for the state to annex responsibility for everything from sobriety to whether or not consenting adults can exchange sex for money, to constraining the temptation to buy a given product represents something entirely novel that's come about suddenly in response to this particular economic crisis, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

it is true that it is broader debate but you applied this notion to government participation in GM and invoked the "nagging difficulties of every life" (paraphrase) to address the response to an economic and environmental crisis of catastrophic proportions. And again (what is it 3rd or 4th time I have to explain to you?) it isn't a question of "constraining the temptation to buy a given product" but of making sure that people aren't the captives of snake oil salesmen who create needs by manipulating people emotions.

 

I'd agree that snake-oil, meaning a factual claim that one can objectively prove to be fraudulent, is something that government should (and in most cases already does) subject to various sanctions. I hope that this means that you've already written your legislators imploring them to apply the same evidentiary standards to homeopathy and other alternative modalities that they apply to pharmaceuticals and scientific medical practice.

 

However, it seems as though the dream-world that you conjure up in bits and pieces via your posts here would include a definition of snake-oil that's far broader than empirically testable fraud claims. One can't help but get the impression that snake-oil consists of any class of desires, pursuits, interests, hobbies, ideas, interests, diversions, etc that's at odds with your own particular conception of what's socially beneficial.

 

Most of us dislike particular aspects of the society we live in, other people's opinions, etc. That's one thing, but wanting to grant the state the power to eliminate anything that deviates from our personal conception of what's permissible is completely at odds with everything about the liberal tradition, and marks the spot where the statist "progressives" and religious fundamentalists of various stripes start staking out some overlapping turf.

 

People have been lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, whoring, drinking, overeating, idling, etc from the dawn of the species onwards. Religious fundamentalists are convinced that they need to get their hands on the levers of power to drive satan out of everyone's lives, and leftists of a particular strip are reaching for the same levers for the same reasons - to keep people from making the "wrong" choices. In this case, it's not the devil that's making people do it - it's...marketing and/or the aggregate of individual choices that we commonly refer to as "the market."

 

 

 

 

 

[prole]

So we agree that for you it's not about everyone having health-care, it's about the government determining the minute details of who gets what health-care. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

No, I'd be "okay" with giving welfare to corporate vampires masquerading as health-care providers if it would get everybody health care, but I wouldn't be "cool" with it. As far as determining who gets what, I would think it entirely appropriate for the government to set guidelines as to what standard level of coverage would mean in a taxpayer funded health care program. Hayekian boogeymen aside, what's the problem here?

Edited June 2, 2009 by prole

[j_b]

I'd agree that snake-oil, meaning a factual claim that one can objectively prove to be fraudulent, is something that government should (and in most cases already does) subject to various sanctions. I hope that this means that you've already written your legislators imploring them to apply the same evidentiary standards to homeopathy and other alternative modalities that they apply to pharmaceuticals and scientific medical practice.

 

However, it seems as though the dream-world that you conjure up in bits and pieces via your posts here would include a definition of snake-oil that's far broader than empirically testable fraud claims. One can't help but get the impression that snake-oil consists of any class of desires, pursuits, interests, hobbies, ideas, interests, diversions, etc that's at odds with your own particular conception of what's socially beneficial.

 

Most of us dislike particular aspects of the society we live in, other people's opinions, etc. That's one thing, but wanting to grant the state the power to eliminate anything that deviates from our personal conception of what's permissible is completely at odds with everything about the liberal tradition, and marks the spot where the statist "progressives" and religious fundamentalists of various stripes start staking out some overlapping turf.

 

People have been lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, whoring, drinking, overeating, idling, etc from the dawn of the species onwards. Religious fundamentalists are convinced that they need to get their hands on the levers of power to drive satan out of everyone's lives, and leftists of a particular strip are reaching for the same levers for the same reasons - to keep people from making the "wrong" choices. In this case, it's not the devil that's making people do it - it's...marketing and/or the aggregate of individual choices that we commonly refer to as "the market."

 

so, besides once more falsely claiming that I want to grant government the power to eliminate anything I disagree with where did you actually address what I said?