Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "300K March For Climate Change, Media Yawns" video.

  1. We can't, we have what is called freedom of speech.  And do you really trust the government to determine what is "non-biased news"?
    2
  2. A simple google search will show that it got covered in the media. 
    1
  3. jhonthebee So that elected fourth branch is going to be free from corruption? 
    1
  4. jhonthebee So you incriminate all forms of corruption.  Who is going to enforce it, the government?  We actually have a way to prevent corruption.  We can prevent it from limiting the powers of the federal government and give more powers to the states.   
    1
  5. jhonthebee It is actually big government that is a problem.  Giving more power to the federal government is the problem because it can now be bought.  Adding another branch is just another power that those with money can buy out. The idea of state rights is that you have more control over your state and local government.  You actually see the problems first hand unless you just stay inside 24/7.  With state rights the powers are spread out.  If a state becomes corrupt you can always move to another state and remain a US citizen.  The federal government should be there to deal with foreign affairs, see that all governments follow the constitution, and deal with any commerce between states.  The states are there to deal with domestic affairs and see that the federal government follows the constitution.  The powers are spread out and balanced and everyone checked everyone. The problem we have now is that we have gotten away from that.  Too many people have the mindset like you.   The mindset is that us as citizens and states are inferior and we can't solve our domestic problems ourselves.  We can't help out as local communities or as states create programs to help people or function on our own.  We need the federal government and any threat of making it smaller would lead to disaster.  After the sequester Obama talked about all these problems that would happen due to the cuts.  Nothing bad happen, we were fine and actually saw some economic growth. People still fear that if we removed federal domestic laws such as business regulations or social safety nets than everyone is going to die.  Fact is they aren't. Since we have such a strong dependency on the federal government it does whatever it wants.  It can be bought out and create policies to help out people they want.  Like in the recession we saw the big banks get bigger.  Businesses got bailouts.  That was thanks to your congressmen.  Now you want the federal government to control the news?  What is going to stop them from being bought out and showing what they want?  You already are against state rights.  You yourself can't do it because here is something, say you live in CA.  You have, I believe, 55 representatives from CA in congress, that is around 12%.  You are not represented at the federal level.  Those politicians don't care.  They will love to have that forth branch because then they can another way to stack the cards in their favor. The solution to these problems is not more government. 
    1
  6. jhonthebee Ok, so you criminalize bribery.  Who is going to enforce that law and who is going to prevent those individuals from being corrupt?   You are creating more layers of government that make government more corruptible and is harder to control.   
    1
  7. jhonthebee No you basically will set up a government that can censor news shows so the only information that gets told to the public is what the government wants you to here. 
    1
  8. jhonthebee We had the best system out there, we just went away from it.  The system was that the federal government dealt with foreign affairs, dealt with any commerce between the states and see that state and local governments followed the constitution.  The states were to deal with domestic affairs and see that the federal government followed the constitution.  The idea was to have checks and balances and to not put all the power in one place, in this case the federal government. Your voice is minute at the federal level. If you live in CA only 12% of the member of congress are from your state, and you don't even vote for all of them.  At the state and local level you have more control over what happens and you see directly how it effects your own backyard.  That is another point of state rights.  Adding more layers and thus more power to the federal government is just to going to cause more corruption and allow it to be bought. The problem with Occupy Wall Street is that they needed to express their anger to the White House and DC.  If the federal government had on power and wasn't oppressing the states and citizens and was kept in check by the states than it wouldn't be bought by those with money.  OWS had some good intentions but needed to direct their anger to DC and a big federal government, not to those with money.   
    1