In an example of one of many similarities to be found by those who choose to read and find factual evidence instead of being told what to think by major media outlets who espouse one or the other of two ideological standpoints:
By 2009, Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd had recieved $280,000 in donations from insurer AIG, a major player in the “bailout” situation which contributed to our current financial woes.
Barack Obama received $104,000 from AIG in his 2008 campaign
George W. Bush received $200,000 through the course of his campaigns.
John McCain recieved $99,000 at the same time that Obama received $104,000 in 2008.
Companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs,(of which Timothy Geithner is a former employee), and corporations in different areas of commerce such as Monsanto, have continually benefited no matter the political party in power, and have taken more and more power and hegemony to themselves.
Is it possible, as a modifier to the question, that more ambiguous differences used to stoke the fires of hatred and intolerance among the “right” and the “left” of the American populace, and which are never really fully addressed or resolved in any real way, such as abortion, gay rights, “big” vs. “small” government, etc, are purposefully exacerbated in order to keep the American people from thinking and acting collectively so that questions about where power is really placed and how it affects all of us regardless of ideological differences are never asked?
FOX News, the “Conservative” news, is owned by the gigantic “News Corp”, which controls a disproportionate amount of media outlets including many newspapers and other mediums, and which has ties to other corporate interests.
MSNBC, the “Liberal” news, is owned by GE, who owns all NBC affiliates and outlets, is associated through stock holdings to many other corporations, and which is also one of the world’s top ten defense contractors.
So again, what does this information tell us? Will we have a tendency in answering this to provide a stance which defends our “right” or “left” philosophy and demonizes the opposite side as having more blame in the circumstances that the above indisputable and retrievable facts indicate? If so, how then do we explain the monies paid to politicians of both “sides”, and that both “sides” have been equal in furthering the interests of those who have paid them?
If you identify yourself as “right” or “left”, do you feel that the ideologies of the other side are the sources of all destructive societal tendencies? If so, does this seem reasonable to you if you detach yourself from emotion and look objectively? Does it seem likely that all of the world’s complex problems can be boiled down to only TWO diametrically opposed viewpoints? Is it reasonable to say that if a group of inviduals wanted to divide and control a population, that manipulating emotion and ideological differences used to provoke emotional reaction and which are strongly tied to various religous beliefs, which are usually deep-seated, would be a smart and effective way to divide people so utterly that they would later find it almost impossible to view the other side as anything but a bitter enemy that can never be reconciled with?