If by 'pure' you mean without 'checks and balances,' then you are right. Although Capitalism is one of the most natural forms of economy, it still requires checks and balances. This means that there must be competition and a fair playing field. However, once you start price fixing, heavily taxing, or giving certain corporations advantages that other corporations do not have, etc., then of course you are gaming the system.
Remember, though, that without that evil cowardly France, we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War.
France was playing us in order to defeat Britain. It backfired, and we influenced a revolution in their own country shortly thereafter.
Then you are automatically in favor of some measure of socialism, Komrad!
Quite the contrary, just minor checks and balances to insure competition and a fair playing field.
I also pointed out that partial socialism - such as practiced in the US - has lasted far longer.
Welfare has failed, social security is failing, the public school systems are failing, waiting at the DMV can be a nightmare. Wow, it has just been really successful! It has only lasted this long because it breeds dependency. People feel they are 'entitled.'
You're now stuck blaming the Democrats for the fact that you've utterly failed to win the hearts of the world.
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. has been cleaning up, protecting, rescuing, and establishing democracy in the rest of the world since we became a nation. Now all of the sudden we are supposed to care about what they think? The U.N. has been corrupt and our so called allies have been making deals with our enemies. What else is new?
Any system that puts greed as God, is doomed to fail because of its inherent unrighteousness. Jesus was a socialist. OMFG!!! Rush Limbaugh wept!!!
Economics is trade. Trade is made easier through currency. Money is currency. Greed is human's desire to have more "stuff," therefore any economic system will have Greed. All we can do is to try to make sure people play fairly. Socialism is not the answer.
Unrestrained Capitalism leads to utter depletion of the system, and the destruction of the middle class when the rich are done feeding on everyone.
I am not for unrestrained capitalism. However, your theory does not make sense anyway. A large middle class equates to more people with enough money to buy your products, making you even richer. The U.S. has a very large middle class compared to other nations. Communist countries do not have a middle class. The rich work in high government, and everyone else is poor.
BTW: I am a former dittohead. I know all your lame tactics.
The truth is my only tactic. The left has always used an ends justifies the means approach, which is why they lie to persuade the public. The world hated us long before G.W., and the world trade center was bombed before 9/11. John Kerry stated in 2004 that he would have been for the Iraq war even knowing what he knew in 2004. The echelon project for spying on electronic conversations was started in the Clinton administration. FDR had mail that was coming and going from the country opened and read by government, had Japanese citizens sent to camps, and was president for more than two terms. The Democrats got us in to more wars than any Republican (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam). Our middle east policy was pretty much the same, if not worse, under Democrats. So all of what the left says now is pretty much spinful lies. They offer no solutions because they know they would not be popular with the public. They can only try to discredit and criticize. This is why they will not win elections.
Yes, and Republicans are now losing in America....In 2 years you've managed to alienate the population of the world's "lone superpower"
You are falling for your own propaganda. The world is simply repeating what they hear coming out of the DNC talking points. Socialist Europe was already attempting to counteract our superpower status with the EU and corrupt UN. Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela simply repeat what they hear the Democrats say and try to use it against us. Who needs Tokyo Rose? We have the Democrats!
1. You named _one_ lone News channel that had to be started by an outsider, an Australian, because the left had infiltrated all of our own media outlets. You see, the left does not believe in an opposing viewpoint. They are Stalinists. They act like they are for free speech, but only when it supports their twisted world view. The reaction to the 'path to 9/11' movie is just one example.
2. Social security is going to fail. In the end, we will have either privatized social security or none at all.
3. Socialism is doomed to fail. Any economic system that does not allow supply and demand to set value is doomed to fail. Socialism also uses coercion and dependency to control people and to socially engineer, which will eventually lead to revolt. Most of the unrest will be the result of unemployment, lack of innovation, and stagnation though.
I'm talking about passing a Constitutional amendment barring contributions over $1000 (adjusted every decade for, say, 1/10th the rate of inflation). That pretty much makes all the other b.s. irrelevant.
Only in an unrealistic dream world! I would say that transparency is the key. There are candidates who are already millionaires and own corporations, and they are allowed to run and serve and spend as much as they want on their campaigns. Those types of rules will just force people to find more creative ways to contribute that may not be as transparent.
It is funny how you guys don't seem to mind the leftists having control of the majority of media outlets. I would say that this is just as bad for democracy. Hollywood is basically communist, and the news outlets are mostly a bunch of wealthy leftists.
That's what the corporate statists of the day (the neo cons of today) did to America.
I am not for corporate statists, and I don't anyone who is. Even those who work for corporations want to buy things from other corporations and do not want those other corporations to run things. You are really falling for all that Michael Moore communist propaganda. I should note that companies like Haliburton were getting no bid contracts during the Clinton administration. Neo-cons are just for the United States taking advantage of its superpower status to make the world better by spreading the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Before you respond, answer this... ever wonder why you Republicans aren't well liked anymore? Ever wonder why Libertarians are so unpopular? Just ask yourself that.
Most of the world is either socialist or a dictatorship. The United States is the lone superpower and we are one of the few countries that have not completely succumed to the left, although many of our institutions are now being controlled by the left. Socialist countries do not like the fact that the United States has been spreading its cultural influences and forcing them out of their socialism. Karl Marx said that communism cannot work unless the whole world was made communist. The same goes with socialism. Germany has been forced to increase its work hours, and France despises having to change their culture to fit the new reality. The left has been brainwashing our children that America is bad by filling our brains with the sins of our country (treatment of Native Americans, slaves, robber barrons, etc.) without providing any perspective on how this compared to what other countries were doing at the time (which often times was worse). They look at the past with today's goggles. Republicans see through this, and feel that America is a force for good. Democrats fall for the brainwash, and are usually weak emotional types that carry the leftist torch.
What does that matter? The next politician will get bought and paid for on the spot. Look at what happened when California booted Gray "bought and paid for" Davis and elected Ahhhnuld: he was even more bought and paid for than Davis!
Yes, and I'm sure that if YOU were somehow elected it would not happen. Yet everyone else is a crook. You do realize that even if one congressman is "paid for," the bill still has to pass, and it still has to *not* be vetoed. I assume you think that all of our lawmakers are paid off, including our president or governors, and that there are not struggling powers who want opposite things "paying off" politicians?
Don't get me wrong, EVERY form of government has corruption. Wherever you have human nature you have corruption.
There's no difference between lobbyists and bribes. And corporations don't need personhood; personhood is designed to shield corporate leaders from liabilities. That's bullshit. You and I can't be shielded from liability like people who run corporations can.
Personhood is apparently constitutional. If you don't like it, then lobby against it. Oh, I forgot, you think lobbying is the same as bribing. Well, then form your own corporation and do it. Nothing stops you from forming your own corporation.
Are you really this ignorant or are you just parodying neo conservatism???
Corporate personhood was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1886 or so, well before your neo-conservatism "boogeyman." You don't even know what a neo-conservative is.
OS X includes a movie maker, from what I've heard. Linux bundles with lots of software. If they want to make it illegal, then every OS maker should be excluded from doing this type of thing. If the problem is that Microsoft is a monopoly, then do something about that in and of itself, on its own merit.
their will should be counteracted by a handful of wealthy lobbyists.
Wealthy lobbyists lobby representatives (people who represent their district). If citizens don't like the bills that are voted for by that representative, they can vote that person out of office. One should vote based on record, not based on TV ads. If you elect corrupt politicians, you deserve what you get. (I personally do not think that congress should be paid more than the national average either, btw.)
I am not for that. Because they're not actual citizens.
I would agree with you, except to say that even institutions require some representation. This is no different than a political activist group lobbying government, or the NEA, or the NAACP, or the ACLU, or labor Unions. This is no different than a local public school needing something done at the national level. While I agree that money should not buy access, I don't necessarily agree that institutions should not lobby representatives if they feel they need something done.
And now you're saying super majorities can't be tyrannical? What then was Prohibition?
What? I never stated that. I simply stated that we made it difficult for a majority to impose their will. No system is perfect. Besides, now you are arguing against yourself!
I'm anti corporate personhood.
Some corporations have legitimate needs in order to successfully compete in the marketplace, and therefore their needs should be heard just like any citizen's needs. Are you not for that? I don't think that corporations should get special treatment or anything like that. I'm not for corporations giving any more to campaigns than the average citizen can, etc. Is that what you mean?
You just don't want any limits placed on your corporate masters.
I never said that. I believe that it is the government's job to make sure that corporations cannot be tyrannical. I do not believe in monopolies, or oligarchy. But I am not anti-corporation like you. Corporations are not all evil.
the super majority is just a tyranny of a larger majority.
Exactly, and our founders realized this, which is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution. First, it is very hard to get that many people to agree on anything. Second, amendments are very hard to pass, even harder than just a super majority. Third, the president (one person) can Veto a bill. If the founders intended "majority rule" they would not have needed a constitution. They would have simply wrote "whatever the majority says goes!"
1. Just because I am not for a Mobocracy (your idea of a Democracy), does not mean that I am for coercion by the minority. I am for liberty, get that? I am not for oligarchy, nor am I a fascist. Fascism is a LEFT WING ideology (they were nationalistic SOCIALISTS).
2. I am not for invasion of privacy. Where do you get that from? If you read my posts, you'll see that I am NOT for corporations or government gathering, storing, or trading our privacy.
3. You should be glad the Majority can hardly impose their will. The Republicans are in power, and they are the majority, and you hate them remember? How would you like it if the majority told you that you could no longer live where generations of your family lived, or wear your hair a certain way, or practice a certain religion? Get my drift?
" The first myth is that the overall U.S. trade deficit is caused by unfair trade barriers abroad. Foreign barriers are certainly a problem, just as our own barriers to imports remain a problem. But trade restrictions do not determine the overall U.S. trade deficit, nor do they fully account for the differences in bilateral trade balances. For example, the United States runs a large trade surplus with Brazil, a country with relatively high trade barriers, while we run deficits with Mexico and Canada, two countries virtually open to U.S. exports.
The second myth is that trade deficits are caused by a lack of U.S. industrial competitiveness. This myth has been refuted by the stellar performance of the American economy, which today is the envy of the world. Since 1992, the U.S. trade deficit has tripled. During that same time, U.S. industrial production has surged 24 percent and manufacturing output 27 percent. The American people sell more goods and services in the global marketplace than people of any other country.
A third myth is that trade deficits destroy jobs. Again, the performance of the U.S. economy in the last decade should lay that myth to rest. While the trade deficit has expanded, so have American payrolls. Indeed, there is a strong correlation between rising trade deficits and falling rates of unemployment. The reason is simple: The same expanding economy that stimulates demand for labor also raises demand for imported goods and capital.
The final myth is that trade deficits are a drag on the U.S. economy. With the slowdown in East Asia, this seems a reasonable claim. But the drag is not the trade deficit itself, but falling demand for our exports in the Far East. A trade deficit that reflects both rising exports and even more rapidly rising imports can be a sign of health. That has been the case in the United States for most of past two decades. Since 1980, the U.S economy has grown an average of 3.1 percent in years in which the current account deficit has expanded from the previous year, and an average of only 2.0 percent in years in which the deficit has shrunk. If trade deficits are bad for growth, why does the U.S. economy grow more than 50 percent faster when the trade deficit expands?
Frankly, we would have more reason to worry if the U.S. were running a trade surplus. In Mexico in 1995 and more recently in South Korea and other East Asian countries, trade balances flipped overnight from deficit to surplus because of plunging domestic demand and the flight of foreign capital. In Japan today, a soaring trade surplus has been accompanied by record high unemployment. It's no coincidence that America's smallest trade deficit in recent years occurred in 1991--in the trough of our last recession. "
You are not a Reaganite. If you were, you'd realize that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. We do allow a certain amount of majority rule, but it is generally kept in check. We do this by requiring 'super majorities' in a number of cases, and also by having a Constitution that guarantees certain rights and liberties. The electoral college ensures that New York and LA don't always elect our president. Amendments are very difficult to pass. We have checks and balances. We make it so that congress is often times slow moving and gridlocked, so as to keep knee jerk legislation from happening all the time. We allow the president to Veto bills (how is that for majority rule?). We give the executive branch a large amount of power when it comes to protecting the country. I can go on and on, but you get the point.
I feel that a man should work; modern "neo con" right wingers want to send as many jobs as possible to China and India.
So you are for the poor, but not for the poor in China or India? These people need these jobs because without them they would be even poorer. Their economy is where ours was 100 years ago. America has around 4.5% unemployment, last time I checked, which is better than most countries. This is incredibly low. The faster these countries modernize, the higher their citizen's wages will be. The higher their wages, the less jobs we'll be able to ship over there and the more products they will be able to purchase from us. It's a win-win over the long run. You are very ignorant about economics.
You, on the other hand, are a bona fide stooge. You'll lick the feet of your corporate masters for a bone. I have enough money that I can tell them to kiss my ass.
Isn't it funny how many left-wing nuts have lots of money, yet they act like they are doing the poor a favor?! I don't need some wealthy leftist telling me about how bad the rich are. I definitely don't need some leftist coercing me to the will of the majority, invading my freedom or taxing me to death. We live in a Republic not a Democracy, there is a difference. It isn't impossible for the poor to become rich in the U.S. That is more than I can say for other countries. Heck, even Michael Moore is rich now. You should feel glad for them, not be jealous of them. You can always give all your money to the poor if you feel so bad.
Let me guess, you feel that communism or socialism would be much better for the poor, right?
The poor have it pretty well in this country. Just because they are not automatically rich or middle class when they are born, does not mean that they don't have opportunity to become so. I am living proof. Also, there are as many leftist rich as there are right-wing rich, which basically means that they usually cancel each other out as far as political influence goes. There's nothing wrong with being rich. You seem envious to the point of wanting to impose your will on others. In socialist countries, it is who you know or how close you are to the top that counts. Do you want that instead? There are rich people in socialist countries too, btw. In France there is 50% unemployment in some places right now! Not exactly a panacea.
Oh they don't have that right, eh? Tell that to Choicepoint, Lexus Nexus and so forth. They force us to involuntarily give up our personal information 24/7. You're utterly wrong about that, and that is easily demonstrated in a matter of seconds.
What I meant was that they 'should not' have the right. Sorry about that.
I am a Reagan Conservative too, although I don't understand what you mean by the GOP taking a right turn. If overspending, not doing anything about illegal immigration, and acting like big government is "okay" is called "turning to the right," then I'd have to disagree with you. If you are talking about injecting God into the national discourse, Ronald Reagan didn't shy away from that. He once said "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." He also said in his Evil Empire address: "The source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual...And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man." Pat Buchanan is probably closer to a 1939 Republican. If you are talking about turning Fascist, then you may need a history lesson. Fascism is a left wing ideology as far as American politics go. I don't see much nationalism in the GOP either. If you are talking about the Patriot Act, you must really hate FDR and Abraham Lincoln (and all those Democrats who voted for it). FDR interned Japanese, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.
I am for liberty. Liberty means that just because you are in the majority does not mean you have the ability to control my life. Everyone is in the minority in some way or another or at some time or another, sooner or later they will be affected by the majority. The best policy is to minimize government and make sure that government keeps corporations and others from doing things that affect your rights and freedoms. This means that government should not allow corporations to turn into monopolies or to collect and sell your personal information. This also means that we need to do as much as we can to keep corruption out of government and corporations.
Many of the super rich live in Hollywood, Washington State, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and one lives in Omaha. These are LEFT wing socialist types, mostly living on the LEFT coast. Michael Moore, Ben and Jerry (of ice cream fame), John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, to name a few, all joined them! All those famous Hollywood actors and producers belong to this group. You watch movies don't you? Why are you contributing to the "super rich?" You buy products from corporations and work for a corporation don't you? Why are you contributing to the "super rich?"
I am guessing that you've never run a successful business...
That's what government wants too, so that they can control you, take your money, and socially engineer. That is why groups are called 'minorities' and 'under privileged' and not.. gasp.. PEOPLE. How about going back to less government and more liberty? Corporations do not have the right to take our liberty and more than government. They do not have the right to store our private information and use it for whatever they want.
Furthermore, some of the richest people come from Hollywood. Lets stop buying and watching movies and listening to music. That will show them! Those greedy wealth builders!
You are so wrong, I don't know where to start. First, you are confusing VALUE and money. When we trade stocks, we trade based on percieved value. When you buy bottled water, you spend extra money based on percieved value (as opposed to government tap water). When you buy a volvo, you buy it based on percieved safety value. Is greed and money the reason why corporations make things that have value to you? Of course. Is that a good thing? YES. What motivating factor would you rather it be? Why do you go to work? For money! Is that because all you care about is money? NO! When you sell your house, do you do it for money? Of course! Is that because all you care about is money? No. Why do you think it is any different for business owners? Is there corruption in government and in corporations? OF COURSE, AS WITH ANY HUMAN ENDEAVOR. Socialists are not free from corruption either, and often it is based on greed and money too.
It is first FREEDOM/LIBERTY and then DEMOCRACY is what saves the western world. I for one would not want to live in a Democracy that makes us all dependent on the government or forces the government upon my every day life. I would not want to live in a Democracy that works like a Mobocracy and does not protect my rights to live free. I would not want to have to work half the year or more just to have to give it to the government.
The problem is that the solution could be worse than the problem. For instance, if we had painted tar on the ice caps during the 1970s when scientists were predicting 'global cooling' where would we be today? I believe that we should adopt a waste neutral policy, not just a carbon neutral policy. For anything we waste, we should demonstrate that it will be 100% recycled in the end SOMEHOW and in a decent amount of time. We should do this in a way that does not burden the average consumer/citizen, and it should not smell like an anti-capitalist ploy from socialist activists.
I believe that mass mailers and mass producers should subsidize our landfills and prove that their waste will be 100% recycled in the end in a decent amount of time without burden to the consumer.
Something tells me he doesn't pay enough. He still has to make up for all those years that he didn't pay, plus he needs to pay more than he uses in order to actually 'reduce' CO2. Besides, he is helping increase the demand for these CO2 producing machines, thus lowering the cost, thus making them more attractive to others who may not share his values. Not to mention the fact that his family helped get lots of people hooked on tobacco and die of cancer. He should help pay these people restitution too. (Of course the second hand smoke released into the atmosphere couldn't have been good either.)
Yes, we should have painted lots of tar on artic ice to absorb the heat and melt all the ice back in the 1970s because Scientists were all warning about "Global Cooling." You put WAY too much faith in Science and Government. How about this for an idea: All socialists and liberals should stop driving SUVs and flying in airplanes (or riding in limos). They should quit their jobs and go live on a farm, far, far away--in their own communes. They should not use any electricity, and they should plant lots of trees and gardens. I'll even support trading fresh fruit and vegetables for property tax payments. That should cut out most of the CO2 usage on planet earth, and provide the rest of us with relief.
And their words said they were busy stopping Saddam from getting WMD, to which effect Clinton ran an air war against Saddam through the decade which stopped him without invading.
Your theory does not hold water. 1. The Dems voted for the War. 2. Even John Kerry said he would have voted for the war "knowing now what he knew then" during the 2004 campaign. 3. Even after Clinton left office, Democrats (even Hillary) were saying:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Keep spreading lies, after all "the ends justifies the means" right? Power at all costs, right? Socialism and humanistic secularism at any cost right?
If I wanted to play your game, I'd cut through your lies by saying that neither Clinton nor Kerry invaded Iraq.
Now you change your charge to "but they didn't invade Iraq based on THEIR lies." Nice. So the Clinton admin was lying, John Kerry was lying, German intelligence was lying, the U.N. was passing resolutions and sending in inspectors for no reason, Newspapers and Policy institutions were lying, and of course Bush is the smartest person in the world "in this one instance" because he was able to hide the truth from everyone!
For the record, the senate *did* find Clinton guilty of lying, they just didn't remove him from office over it. But while we are on the subject of Congress, why did the Democrats vote for the war in Iraq? Were they duped by this "all of the sudden intelligent" Bush? You mean they didn't listen to Clinton and Albright? You mean they didn't see the inspectors being kicked out by Saddam time and time again? They were all duped, right? Keep on lying...
Here is a snippet from "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" when Bush first took office:
"
IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD): AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
By Michael Eisenstadt Washington Institute for Near East Policy POLICYWATCH, NO. 515 29 January 2001
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are emerging as one of the first major foreign policy challenges of the Bush administration. Free of weapons monitors and with sanctions eroding, Iraq has resumed its aggressive policies. After the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada last September, it briefly moved elements of four to five divisions toward its border with Syria in a show of solidarity, and on several occasions since then, Saddam Husayn has threatened to destroy Israel. Then, earlier this month, his older son Uday reasserted Iraq's claim to Kuwait. With its conventional military capabilities hobbled by two bloody wars and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq's retained WMD capabilities assume renewed salience. "
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
It is one thing to lie about sex in front of your wife, it is quite another to do it in front of a Judge or Grand Jury. But Liberals such as yourself have lied repeatedly about this "Bush Lied" thing, and you seem to not have a problem with it.
Nice jab, but I don't buy into your moral relativism. A crime is a crime and we should not put up with any of it. As for Bush lying to get us into war, you are lying to me about that. 12+ U.N. resolutions weren't enough for you week, feeble minded liberals. If he had no WMDs, why was the U.N. even bothering to pass resolution after resolution? Why was the U.N. sending in inspectors? Obviously the world thought he had WMDs. Either way, I'm glad moral relativists like you are not in charge. Our country would be as corrupt as Mexico.
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be cold enough for wooly mammoths up there.
Capitalism, in its pure form, has failed.
If by 'pure' you mean without 'checks and balances,' then you are right. Although Capitalism is one of the most natural forms of economy, it still requires checks and balances. This means that there must be competition and a fair playing field. However, once you start price fixing, heavily taxing, or giving certain corporations advantages that other corporations do not have, etc., then of course you are gaming the system.
Remember, though, that without that evil cowardly France, we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War.
France was playing us in order to defeat Britain. It backfired, and we influenced a revolution in their own country shortly thereafter.
Then you are automatically in favor of some measure of socialism, Komrad!
Quite the contrary, just minor checks and balances to insure competition and a fair playing field.
I also pointed out that partial socialism - such as practiced in the US - has lasted far longer.
Welfare has failed, social security is failing, the public school systems are failing, waiting at the DMV can be a nightmare. Wow, it has just been really successful! It has only lasted this long because it breeds dependency. People feel they are 'entitled.'
You're now stuck blaming the Democrats for the fact that you've utterly failed to win the hearts of the world.
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. has been cleaning up, protecting, rescuing, and establishing democracy in the rest of the world since we became a nation. Now all of the sudden we are supposed to care about what they think? The U.N. has been corrupt and our so called allies have been making deals with our enemies. What else is new?
Any system that puts greed as God, is doomed to fail because of its inherent unrighteousness. Jesus was a socialist. OMFG!!! Rush Limbaugh wept!!!
Economics is trade. Trade is made easier through currency. Money is currency. Greed is human's desire to have more "stuff," therefore any economic system will have Greed. All we can do is to try to make sure people play fairly. Socialism is not the answer.
Unrestrained Capitalism leads to utter depletion of the system, and the destruction of the middle class when the rich are done feeding on everyone.
I am not for unrestrained capitalism. However, your theory does not make sense anyway. A large middle class equates to more people with enough money to buy your products, making you even richer. The U.S. has a very large middle class compared to other nations. Communist countries do not have a middle class. The rich work in high government, and everyone else is poor.
BTW: I am a former dittohead. I know all your lame tactics.
The truth is my only tactic. The left has always used an ends justifies the means approach, which is why they lie to persuade the public. The world hated us long before G.W., and the world trade center was bombed before 9/11. John Kerry stated in 2004 that he would have been for the Iraq war even knowing what he knew in 2004. The echelon project for spying on electronic conversations was started in the Clinton administration. FDR had mail that was coming and going from the country opened and read by government, had Japanese citizens sent to camps, and was president for more than two terms. The Democrats got us in to more wars than any Republican (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam). Our middle east policy was pretty much the same, if not worse, under Democrats. So all of what the left says now is pretty much spinful lies. They offer no solutions because they know they would not be popular with the public. They can only try to discredit and criticize. This is why they will not win elections.
Yes, and Republicans are now losing in America....In 2 years you've managed to alienate the population of the world's "lone superpower"
You are falling for your own propaganda. The world is simply repeating what they hear coming out of the DNC talking points. Socialist Europe was already attempting to counteract our superpower status with the EU and corrupt UN. Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela simply repeat what they hear the Democrats say and try to use it against us. Who needs Tokyo Rose? We have the Democrats!
1. You named _one_ lone News channel that had to be started by an outsider, an Australian, because the left had infiltrated all of our own media outlets. You see, the left does not believe in an opposing viewpoint. They are Stalinists. They act like they are for free speech, but only when it supports their twisted world view. The reaction to the 'path to 9/11' movie is just one example.
2. Social security is going to fail. In the end, we will have either privatized social security or none at all.
3. Socialism is doomed to fail. Any economic system that does not allow supply and demand to set value is doomed to fail. Socialism also uses coercion and dependency to control people and to socially engineer, which will eventually lead to revolt. Most of the unrest will be the result of unemployment, lack of innovation, and stagnation though.
4. The internet will replace the liberal media.
5. Don't count us Reaganites out yet.
I'm talking about passing a Constitutional amendment barring contributions over $1000 (adjusted every decade for, say, 1/10th the rate of inflation). That pretty much makes all the other b.s. irrelevant.
Only in an unrealistic dream world! I would say that transparency is the key. There are candidates who are already millionaires and own corporations, and they are allowed to run and serve and spend as much as they want on their campaigns. Those types of rules will just force people to find more creative ways to contribute that may not be as transparent.
It is funny how you guys don't seem to mind the leftists having control of the majority of media outlets. I would say that this is just as bad for democracy. Hollywood is basically communist, and the news outlets are mostly a bunch of wealthy leftists.
That's what the corporate statists of the day (the neo cons of today) did to America.
I am not for corporate statists, and I don't anyone who is. Even those who work for corporations want to buy things from other corporations and do not want those other corporations to run things. You are really falling for all that Michael Moore communist propaganda. I should note that companies like Haliburton were getting no bid contracts during the Clinton administration. Neo-cons are just for the United States taking advantage of its superpower status to make the world better by spreading the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Before you respond, answer this... ever wonder why you Republicans aren't well liked anymore? Ever wonder why Libertarians are so unpopular? Just ask yourself that.
Most of the world is either socialist or a dictatorship. The United States is the lone superpower and we are one of the few countries that have not completely succumed to the left, although many of our institutions are now being controlled by the left. Socialist countries do not like the fact that the United States has been spreading its cultural influences and forcing them out of their socialism. Karl Marx said that communism cannot work unless the whole world was made communist. The same goes with socialism. Germany has been forced to increase its work hours, and France despises having to change their culture to fit the new reality. The left has been brainwashing our children that America is bad by filling our brains with the sins of our country (treatment of Native Americans, slaves, robber barrons, etc.) without providing any perspective on how this compared to what other countries were doing at the time (which often times was worse). They look at the past with today's goggles. Republicans see through this, and feel that America is a force for good. Democrats fall for the brainwash, and are usually weak emotional types that carry the leftist torch.
What does that matter? The next politician will get bought and paid for on the spot. Look at what happened when California booted Gray "bought and paid for" Davis and elected Ahhhnuld: he was even more bought and paid for than Davis!
Yes, and I'm sure that if YOU were somehow elected it would not happen. Yet everyone else is a crook. You do realize that even if one congressman is "paid for," the bill still has to pass, and it still has to *not* be vetoed. I assume you think that all of our lawmakers are paid off, including our president or governors, and that there are not struggling powers who want opposite things "paying off" politicians?
Don't get me wrong, EVERY form of government has corruption. Wherever you have human nature you have corruption.
There's no difference between lobbyists and bribes. And corporations don't need personhood; personhood is designed to shield corporate leaders from liabilities. That's bullshit. You and I can't be shielded from liability like people who run corporations can.
Personhood is apparently constitutional. If you don't like it, then lobby against it. Oh, I forgot, you think lobbying is the same as bribing. Well, then form your own corporation and do it. Nothing stops you from forming your own corporation.
Are you really this ignorant or are you just parodying neo conservatism???
Corporate personhood was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1886 or so, well before your neo-conservatism "boogeyman." You don't even know what a neo-conservative is.
OS X includes a movie maker, from what I've heard. Linux bundles with lots of software. If they want to make it illegal, then every OS maker should be excluded from doing this type of thing. If the problem is that Microsoft is a monopoly, then do something about that in and of itself, on its own merit.
their will should be counteracted by a handful of wealthy lobbyists.
Wealthy lobbyists lobby representatives (people who represent their district). If citizens don't like the bills that are voted for by that representative, they can vote that person out of office. One should vote based on record, not based on TV ads. If you elect corrupt politicians, you deserve what you get. (I personally do not think that congress should be paid more than the national average either, btw.)
I am not for that. Because they're not actual citizens.
I would agree with you, except to say that even institutions require some representation. This is no different than a political activist group lobbying government, or the NEA, or the NAACP, or the ACLU, or labor Unions. This is no different than a local public school needing something done at the national level. While I agree that money should not buy access, I don't necessarily agree that institutions should not lobby representatives if they feel they need something done.
And now you're saying super majorities can't be tyrannical? What then was Prohibition?
What? I never stated that. I simply stated that we made it difficult for a majority to impose their will. No system is perfect. Besides, now you are arguing against yourself!
I'm anti corporate personhood.
Some corporations have legitimate needs in order to successfully compete in the marketplace, and therefore their needs should be heard just like any citizen's needs. Are you not for that? I don't think that corporations should get special treatment or anything like that. I'm not for corporations giving any more to campaigns than the average citizen can, etc. Is that what you mean?
You just don't want any limits placed on your corporate masters.
I never said that. I believe that it is the government's job to make sure that corporations cannot be tyrannical. I do not believe in monopolies, or oligarchy. But I am not anti-corporation like you. Corporations are not all evil.
the super majority is just a tyranny of a larger majority.
Exactly, and our founders realized this, which is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution. First, it is very hard to get that many people to agree on anything. Second, amendments are very hard to pass, even harder than just a super majority. Third, the president (one person) can Veto a bill. If the founders intended "majority rule" they would not have needed a constitution. They would have simply wrote "whatever the majority says goes!"
1. Just because I am not for a Mobocracy (your idea of a Democracy), does not mean that I am for coercion by the minority. I am for liberty, get that? I am not for oligarchy, nor am I a fascist. Fascism is a LEFT WING ideology (they were nationalistic SOCIALISTS).
2. I am not for invasion of privacy. Where do you get that from? If you read my posts, you'll see that I am NOT for corporations or government gathering, storing, or trading our privacy.
3. You should be glad the Majority can hardly impose their will. The Republicans are in power, and they are the majority, and you hate them remember? How would you like it if the majority told you that you could no longer live where generations of your family lived, or wear your hair a certain way, or practice a certain religion? Get my drift?
4. From: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dg061198.html
"
The first myth is that the overall U.S. trade deficit is caused by unfair trade barriers abroad. Foreign barriers are certainly a problem, just as our own barriers to imports remain a problem. But trade restrictions do not determine the overall U.S. trade deficit, nor do they fully account for the differences in bilateral trade balances. For example, the United States runs a large trade surplus with Brazil, a country with relatively high trade barriers, while we run deficits with Mexico and Canada, two countries virtually open to U.S. exports.
The second myth is that trade deficits are caused by a lack of U.S. industrial competitiveness. This myth has been refuted by the stellar performance of the American economy, which today is the envy of the world. Since 1992, the U.S. trade deficit has tripled. During that same time, U.S. industrial production has surged 24 percent and manufacturing output 27 percent. The American people sell more goods and services in the global marketplace than people of any other country.
A third myth is that trade deficits destroy jobs. Again, the performance of the U.S. economy in the last decade should lay that myth to rest. While the trade deficit has expanded, so have American payrolls. Indeed, there is a strong correlation between rising trade deficits and falling rates of unemployment. The reason is simple: The same expanding economy that stimulates demand for labor also raises demand for imported goods and capital.
The final myth is that trade deficits are a drag on the U.S. economy. With the slowdown in East Asia, this seems a reasonable claim. But the drag is not the trade deficit itself, but falling demand for our exports in the Far East. A trade deficit that reflects both rising exports and even more rapidly rising imports can be a sign of health. That has been the case in the United States for most of past two decades. Since 1980, the U.S economy has grown an average of 3.1 percent in years in which the current account deficit has expanded from the previous year, and an average of only 2.0 percent in years in which the deficit has shrunk. If trade deficits are bad for growth, why does the U.S. economy grow more than 50 percent faster when the trade deficit expands?
Frankly, we would have more reason to worry if the U.S. were running a trade surplus. In Mexico in 1995 and more recently in South Korea and other East Asian countries, trade balances flipped overnight from deficit to surplus because of plunging domestic demand and the flight of foreign capital. In Japan today, a soaring trade surplus has been accompanied by record high unemployment. It's no coincidence that America's smallest trade deficit in recent years occurred in 1991--in the trough of our last recession.
"
You are not a Reaganite. If you were, you'd realize that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. We do allow a certain amount of majority rule, but it is generally kept in check. We do this by requiring 'super majorities' in a number of cases, and also by having a Constitution that guarantees certain rights and liberties. The electoral college ensures that New York and LA don't always elect our president. Amendments are very difficult to pass. We have checks and balances. We make it so that congress is often times slow moving and gridlocked, so as to keep knee jerk legislation from happening all the time. We allow the president to Veto bills (how is that for majority rule?). We give the executive branch a large amount of power when it comes to protecting the country. I can go on and on, but you get the point.
I feel that a man should work; modern "neo con" right wingers want to send as many jobs as possible to China and India.
So you are for the poor, but not for the poor in China or India? These people need these jobs because without them they would be even poorer. Their economy is where ours was 100 years ago. America has around 4.5% unemployment, last time I checked, which is better than most countries. This is incredibly low. The faster these countries modernize, the higher their citizen's wages will be. The higher their wages, the less jobs we'll be able to ship over there and the more products they will be able to purchase from us. It's a win-win over the long run. You are very ignorant about economics.
You, on the other hand, are a bona fide stooge. You'll lick the feet of your corporate masters for a bone. I have enough money that I can tell them to kiss my ass.
Isn't it funny how many left-wing nuts have lots of money, yet they act like they are doing the poor a favor?! I don't need some wealthy leftist telling me about how bad the rich are. I definitely don't need some leftist coercing me to the will of the majority, invading my freedom or taxing me to death. We live in a Republic not a Democracy, there is a difference. It isn't impossible for the poor to become rich in the U.S. That is more than I can say for other countries. Heck, even Michael Moore is rich now. You should feel glad for them, not be jealous of them. You can always give all your money to the poor if you feel so bad.
Let me guess, you feel that communism or socialism would be much better for the poor, right?
The poor have it pretty well in this country. Just because they are not automatically rich or middle class when they are born, does not mean that they don't have opportunity to become so. I am living proof. Also, there are as many leftist rich as there are right-wing rich, which basically means that they usually cancel each other out as far as political influence goes. There's nothing wrong with being rich. You seem envious to the point of wanting to impose your will on others. In socialist countries, it is who you know or how close you are to the top that counts. Do you want that instead? There are rich people in socialist countries too, btw. In France there is 50% unemployment in some places right now! Not exactly a panacea.
Oh they don't have that right, eh? Tell that to Choicepoint, Lexus Nexus and so forth. They force us to involuntarily give up our personal information 24/7. You're utterly wrong about that, and that is easily demonstrated in a matter of seconds.
What I meant was that they 'should not' have the right. Sorry about that.
I am a Reagan Conservative too, although I don't understand what you mean by the GOP taking a right turn. If overspending, not doing anything about illegal immigration, and acting like big government is "okay" is called "turning to the right," then I'd have to disagree with you. If you are talking about injecting God into the national discourse, Ronald Reagan didn't shy away from that. He once said "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." He also said in his Evil Empire address: "The source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual...And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man." Pat Buchanan is probably closer to a 1939 Republican. If you are talking about turning Fascist, then you may need a history lesson. Fascism is a left wing ideology as far as American politics go. I don't see much nationalism in the GOP either. If you are talking about the Patriot Act, you must really hate FDR and Abraham Lincoln (and all those Democrats who voted for it). FDR interned Japanese, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.
Not true.
I am for liberty. Liberty means that just because you are in the majority does not mean you have the ability to control my life. Everyone is in the minority in some way or another or at some time or another, sooner or later they will be affected by the majority. The best policy is to minimize government and make sure that government keeps corporations and others from doing things that affect your rights and freedoms. This means that government should not allow corporations to turn into monopolies or to collect and sell your personal information. This also means that we need to do as much as we can to keep corruption out of government and corporations.
Many of the super rich live in Hollywood, Washington State, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and one lives in Omaha. These are LEFT wing socialist types, mostly living on the LEFT coast. Michael Moore, Ben and Jerry (of ice cream fame), John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, to name a few, all joined them! All those famous Hollywood actors and producers belong to this group. You watch movies don't you? Why are you contributing to the "super rich?" You buy products from corporations and work for a corporation don't you? Why are you contributing to the "super rich?"
I am guessing that you've never run a successful business...
That's what government wants too, so that they can control you, take your money, and socially engineer. That is why groups are called 'minorities' and 'under privileged' and not.. gasp.. PEOPLE. How about going back to less government and more liberty? Corporations do not have the right to take our liberty and more than government. They do not have the right to store our private information and use it for whatever they want.
Furthermore, some of the richest people come from Hollywood. Lets stop buying and watching movies and listening to music. That will show them! Those greedy wealth builders!
You are so wrong, I don't know where to start. First, you are confusing VALUE and money. When we trade stocks, we trade based on percieved value. When you buy bottled water, you spend extra money based on percieved value (as opposed to government tap water). When you buy a volvo, you buy it based on percieved safety value. Is greed and money the reason why corporations make things that have value to you? Of course. Is that a good thing? YES. What motivating factor would you rather it be? Why do you go to work? For money! Is that because all you care about is money? NO! When you sell your house, do you do it for money? Of course! Is that because all you care about is money? No. Why do you think it is any different for business owners? Is there corruption in government and in corporations? OF COURSE, AS WITH ANY HUMAN ENDEAVOR. Socialists are not free from corruption either, and often it is based on greed and money too.
It is first FREEDOM/LIBERTY and then DEMOCRACY is what saves the western world. I for one would not want to live in a Democracy that makes us all dependent on the government or forces the government upon my every day life. I would not want to live in a Democracy that works like a Mobocracy and does not protect my rights to live free. I would not want to have to work half the year or more just to have to give it to the government.
The problem is that the solution could be worse than the problem. For instance, if we had painted tar on the ice caps during the 1970s when scientists were predicting 'global cooling' where would we be today? I believe that we should adopt a waste neutral policy, not just a carbon neutral policy. For anything we waste, we should demonstrate that it will be 100% recycled in the end SOMEHOW and in a decent amount of time. We should do this in a way that does not burden the average consumer/citizen, and it should not smell like an anti-capitalist ploy from socialist activists.
I believe that mass mailers and mass producers should subsidize our landfills and prove that their waste will be 100% recycled in the end in a decent amount of time without burden to the consumer.
Something tells me he doesn't pay enough. He still has to make up for all those years that he didn't pay, plus he needs to pay more than he uses in order to actually 'reduce' CO2. Besides, he is helping increase the demand for these CO2 producing machines, thus lowering the cost, thus making them more attractive to others who may not share his values. Not to mention the fact that his family helped get lots of people hooked on tobacco and die of cancer. He should help pay these people restitution too. (Of course the second hand smoke released into the atmosphere couldn't have been good either.)
Yes, we should have painted lots of tar on artic ice to absorb the heat and melt all the ice back in the 1970s because Scientists were all warning about "Global Cooling." You put WAY too much faith in Science and Government. How about this for an idea: All socialists and liberals should stop driving SUVs and flying in airplanes (or riding in limos). They should quit their jobs and go live on a farm, far, far away--in their own communes. They should not use any electricity, and they should plant lots of trees and gardens. I'll even support trading fresh fruit and vegetables for property tax payments. That should cut out most of the CO2 usage on planet earth, and provide the rest of us with relief.
And their words said they were busy stopping Saddam from getting WMD, to which effect Clinton ran an air war against Saddam through the decade which stopped him without invading.
... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Your theory does not hold water. 1. The Dems voted for the War. 2. Even John Kerry said he would have voted for the war "knowing now what he knew then" during the 2004 campaign. 3. Even after Clinton left office, Democrats (even Hillary) were saying:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Keep spreading lies, after all "the ends justifies the means" right? Power at all costs, right? Socialism and humanistic secularism at any cost right?
If I wanted to play your game, I'd cut through your lies by saying that neither Clinton nor Kerry invaded Iraq.
y wtch515-1-29-01.htm
Now you change your charge to "but they didn't invade Iraq based on THEIR lies." Nice. So the Clinton admin was lying, John Kerry was lying, German intelligence was lying, the U.N. was passing resolutions and sending in inspectors for no reason, Newspapers and Policy institutions were lying, and of course Bush is the smartest person in the world "in this one instance" because he was able to hide the truth from everyone!
For the record, the senate *did* find Clinton guilty of lying, they just didn't remove him from office over it. But while we are on the subject of Congress, why did the Democrats vote for the war in Iraq? Were they duped by this "all of the sudden intelligent" Bush? You mean they didn't listen to Clinton and Albright? You mean they didn't see the inspectors being kicked out by Saddam time and time again? They were all duped, right? Keep on lying...
Here is a snippet from "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" when Bush first took office:
"
IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD): AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
By Michael Eisenstadt
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
POLICYWATCH, NO. 515
29 January 2001
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are emerging as one of the first major foreign policy challenges of the Bush administration. Free of weapons monitors and with sanctions eroding, Iraq has resumed its aggressive policies. After the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada last September, it briefly moved elements of four to five divisions toward its border with Syria in a show of solidarity, and on several occasions since then, Saddam Husayn has threatened to destroy Israel. Then, earlier this month, his older son Uday reasserted Iraq's claim to Kuwait. With its conventional military capabilities hobbled by two bloody wars and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq's retained WMD capabilities assume renewed salience.
"
From: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/winep-polic
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
It is one thing to lie about sex in front of your wife, it is quite another to do it in front of a Judge or Grand Jury. But Liberals such as yourself have lied repeatedly about this "Bush Lied" thing, and you seem to not have a problem with it.
Nice jab, but I don't buy into your moral relativism. A crime is a crime and we should not put up with any of it. As for Bush lying to get us into war, you are lying to me about that. 12+ U.N. resolutions weren't enough for you week, feeble minded liberals. If he had no WMDs, why was the U.N. even bothering to pass resolution after resolution? Why was the U.N. sending in inspectors? Obviously the world thought he had WMDs. Either way, I'm glad moral relativists like you are not in charge. Our country would be as corrupt as Mexico.