Cenk Uygur: Why Our Nobles Betray Us (HuffPo)

[OneGrassRoot]

Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
Posted: June 21, 2010 04:47 AM


I understand that it's a little goofy to draw lessons from a fictional movie, but my wife and I were just watching Braveheart and there was one interesting element in there. In the movie, the nobles of Scotland keep betraying William Wallace who is fighting for the people of Scotland. And my wife asked me why the nobles continually backstab Wallace if he is fighting for their country.

<snip>

And so it is with our nobles today. We keep expecting the politicians and the mainstream press to do the right thing. That is profoundly naive. Why is a television anchor making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year going to look to change the system? He loves the system. The system pays the bills.

That's even truer of our politicians. The status quo got them elected. The status quo will get them - and their staffers - great salaries when they retire and become lobbyists. They'd have to be crazy to change the system that put them up on top.

That's why change must come from outside the system. We keep waiting for the Obama administration to bring us the change they promised. What are we, children? The current system got Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, etc. where they are. They have gotten to the pinnacle of power by playing within that system. They've made millions in that system. That's why they have no intention of actually upending it. They just want to tweak it and do exactly what Obama said he wouldn't do if he got elected - play the Washington game just a little better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-our-nobles-betray-us_b_619080.html

[KG]

1. for the 'nobles', patriotism is concept for the working class/serfs. the nobles first allegiance is

to their fortunes. the nobles trot out the patriotism card when they require the working class/serfs to protect their fortunes.

[Skittles]

3. aw heck, they don't even have to do that

Obama was able to sway people just by SAYING he was all about CHANGE - he had 'em swooning

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpymustgo]

12. That damn logo always scared me. They sold us.

[amborin]

28. +1

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[nashville_brook]

5. what a great read. Cenk rocks.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. I really like him as well. I was focused on this message:

That's why change must come from outside the system. We keep waiting for the Obama administration to bring us the change they promised. What are we, children?

I just think we really, really, really need to be thinking outside the box...

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Einstein

We can't change things from within existing failed systems; somehow, some way we must create new systems, even incrementally.

IMHO.

:hi:

[IOKIYAL]

6. And All This Will End Once Liberals Take Over Right?

LOL!!! I guess you guys think that if only these guys were "truly" Liberal that none of this would happen? right? No Liberal is human and capable of disappointing their constituents? they are as pure as the driven snow?

Cenk is full of it.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[20score]

21. You really need to work on your delivery.

Your comment doesn't make the cut as adult satire, and brought out no facts. You bring nothing to the conversation in an extremely lame attempt at humor.

How about you give it another shot? This time pretend you're having an adult conversation and you have some information that would prove Cenk wrong?

Go ahead, your turn.

[ihavenobias]

27. Yeah, I'm not a fan of posts with 0% substance.

Some people don't mind.

[WillyT]

26. So... You're Not A Liberal ???

How would you characterize the type of Democrat you are???

:shrug:

[MisterP]

30. liberals, progressives, and lefties are, by definition, less tied to corporations and to cash, which

are the main real engines of corruption

Grayson, Kucinich, Sanders, etc., are less disappointing/compromising and far less corrupt than their centrist and conservative counterparts; Boxer, who is liberal or center-left, is at disappointment and corruption levels between the libs and the center/cons

[mmonk]

8. A great observation made by Cenk was the House staffer that made the

comments about Franken's staff.

This doesn't mean you give up all hope. There are some good guys in DC. I recently talked to a House staffer who said that Senator Franken's staff is excellent. The staff is so important because they are the ones who actually write the bills. I asked him why Franken's staff was better than the others. And he had a simple answer - they don't plan to work as lobbyists in DC when they're done serving in his office.

Contrast that with Senator Baucus's staff which has already been going from government service into the for profit Health Insurance lobbying profession and then back again to write the Health Insurance Bill we got (without the "robust" public option nor lower Medicare age nor a seat at the negotiations for single payer advocates).

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Absolutely.

To me this particular piece isn't about political parties, it's about our current SYSTEM within which all parties currently work.

Same message as Sheldon Whitehouse regarding the need to remove corporate influence from government.

http://whitehouse.senate.gov/newsroom/multimedia/view/?id=9a9b4241-291b-4bb3-9df1-262f51eb8827

:hi:

[mmonk]

10. Indeed and I hope a way can be figured out to make that possible

especially given the recent decision by the Roberts Court in Citizens United v. FEC.

[90-percent]

13. Citizen's United

We better "change the system" before the November 2010 election.

Because the people that would be elected as a result of the Citizen's United ruling will be the candidates that have the most money behind them. Historically, the candidates with the most money tend to win, correct?

Money = free speech. I have the same free speech rights as Exxon Mobil, so we're equal. My $50.00 campaign donation is the same as their $10,000,000,000 donation. Could anything be more fair and democratic?

Nice

-90% Jimmy

[ihavenobias]

15. Kick n/t

[kenny blankenship]

16. Get all this negativity out of your system, now - because it's soon to be a thing of the past!

What some people have pleased to call "fundamental disagreement" or "deep critique" will be cleansed from these pages forever in a blinding flash of purity.

[theFrankFactor]

18. What do you see now Winston?

[kenny blankenship]

20. Four five three - anything you like

[tbyg52]

23. The simple truth. nt

[amborin]

29. +1

which side are you on?

[theFrankFactor]

17. + Infinity

[treestar]

19. We don't have "nobles"

We have people with a lot more money than other people.

[tbyg52]

24. Eh, that's all nobles were, anyway

or people who could con people out of money, or con people into letting them run up debts. There wasn't anything noble about nobility.

[Uncle Joe]

22. And this is why a proposal by the likes of Liebermann and Snow to create a kill switch

for the Internet is "rapidly" sailing through the Congress.

I believe they view the Internet as a potential William Wallace.

"That's why change must come from outside the system. We keep waiting for the Obama administration to bring us the change they promised. What are we, children? The current system got Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, etc. where they are. They have gotten to the pinnacle of power by playing within that system. They've made millions in that system. That's why they have no intention of actually upending it. They just want to tweak it and do exactly what Obama said he wouldn't do if he got elected - play the Washington game just a little better."

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ahamadeh/the-internet-kill-switch

The Lieberman bill is titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. The bill would require private companies to share information with the federal government, but it would also grant immunity to the government.

The United States would not be the only country to give the head of state the power to shut off the internet. We would join alongside countries like China and Iran who in the past have restricted the internet from their citizens. This bill seems to be a part of a larger scheme for more regulations and control of the internet by the federal government.

Can you judge a nation by the friends it hangs out with?

Thanks for the thread, OneGrassRoot.

[tbyg52]

25. China and Iran - just who I always wanted to be like! nt