Republicans: Party of the uber-class by SignyM

America loves a winner!

The Gov't has more than enough of our (the people's ) money.

Time to give it back.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay. Let's play with it.

Quote:
Republicans know what's best for themselves.

Democrats know what's best for everyone else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, how nicely divisive a thread. Just when everyone was agreeing...

Nah, not that devisive. These are tough times for SignyM. Her dreams of socialism in America have just been completely vanquished by the utter repudiation by voting Americans of Obama/Pelosi's progressive policies. Add to that the monthly demise of another country going bankrupt under European socialism. Must be tough for her to come to grips with that, so instead she continues her futile efforts to use class-warfare here to divide people. What else is a lady comrade to do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 4:11 AM

Then there was this....another blow to the child-like Socialist dreamers in America :

Waiting Times for Surgeries Increasing In Canada
TOPNEWS.COM
DEC 7, 2010

EXCERPT

Mark Rovere, the Fraser Institute's Associate Director of health policy and co-author of the report said, "We're seeing continued government rationing, which is leading to longer wait times. Our current system is leaving Canadians without timely access to treatment". He added that the waiting time had increased by three weeks than as though justified by doctors.

The median wait times across the country has been assessed by surveying Canadian physicians. The shortest wait times were found in Ontario with 14.0 weeks followed by Manitoba with median wait times of 17.5 weeks.

The wait times in Quebec and British Columbia were reported as 18.8 weeks. In Alberta, the median wait times climbed up 22.1 weeks; in Saskatchewan, it was 26.5 weeks; Nova Scotia, 28.5 weeks; and Newfoundland and Labrador, 29.1 weeks.

http://topnews.us/content/230012-waiting-t...creasing-canada

Wait 20+ weeks for surgery??? Sounds like a heck of a plan! Can't wait to see Republicans strip and defund every single aspect of this pending Healthcare disaster for America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, how nicely divisive a thread. Just when everyone was agreeing...

DT, this is RWED. Nobody ever agrees, except when we talk about the hotness of Jessica Alba and the awesomeness of Firefly.

Division, esp in the left-right dichotomy, is the name of the game here.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:11 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, how nicely divisive a thread. Just when everyone was agreeing...
DT, this is RWED. Nobody ever agrees, except when we talk about the hotness of Jessica Alba and the awesomeness of Firefly.

And how I wish we lived in a world where we could just leave things at that, and all get along.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:21 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, how nicely divisive a thread. Just when everyone was agreeing...

Nah, not that devisive. These are tough times for SignyM. Her dreams of socialism in America have just been completely vanquished by the utter repudiation by voting Americans of Obama/Pelosi's progressive policies. Add to that the monthly demise of another country going bankrupt under European socialism. Must be tough for her to come to grips with that, so instead she continues her futile efforts to use class-warfare here to divide people. What else is a lady comrade to do?

Jongs, This is what bugs me about Reps and Tea Ps and I don't know if you are either or both... but they seem to be primarily motivated to see the "other side" fail. What a colossal waste of energy, like Obama or Signym were working day and night to make your life worse - get over it, you're better than that, the wheel stopped on red this time, lucky you.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, how nicely divisive a thread. Just when everyone was agreeing...

Nah, not that devisive. These are tough times for SignyM. Her dreams of socialism in America have just been completely vanquished by the utter repudiation by voting Americans of Obama/Pelosi's progressive policies. Add to that the monthly demise of another country going bankrupt under European socialism. Must be tough for her to come to grips with that, so instead she continues her futile efforts to use class-warfare here to divide people. What else is a lady comrade to do?

Jongs, This is what bugs me about Reps and Tea Ps and I don't know if you are either or both... but they seem to be primarily motivated to see the "other side" fail. What a colossal waste of energy, like Obama or Signym were working day and night to make your life worse - get over it, you're better than that, the wheel stopped on red this time, lucky you.

So you're bugged, hmm? Funny it doesn't ever "bug" you when Niki and others post daily their divisive and "gotcha" stuff against Republicans, Conservatives, Fox News, or Sarah Palin. I suppose you see all that as fair and rightous!

Actually Obama WAS working day & night to make my life worse. That's all over now thank God. I like Signy...we go way way back. She knows I'm just ribbin' her 'bout her socialist desires.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

So you're bugged, hmm? Funny it doesn't ever "bug" you when Niki and others post daily their divisive and "gotcha" stuff against Republicans, Conservatives, Fox News, or Sarah Palin. I suppose you see all that as fair and rightous!

Heh - fair enough, those bug me too - way too much of that junk. 2011 try something new?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Heh - fair enough, those bug me too - way too much of that junk. 2011 try something new?

No problem. Actually, I don't do much of that these days anyhow. I'm not out to win any hearts and minds or any battles. I leave that to the ones that truly seem to enjoy the fights here. I know it's wrong to gloat and rub salt, yet it is a bit satisfying in a dark way. Guess I'm just a weak human with faults, just like everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 8:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, RWED is rarely anything but disagreements, but I appreciate it when it is, and even when it’s disagreements, all but the worst of us make our points and I learn a lot I wouldn’t otherwise know, and searching to learn about what I read here teaches me even more.

Nonetheless, the question IS a valid one, however much our trolls might try to deflect it. The Republicans are consistently screaming about the deficit and how they want to be fiscally responsible; yet they most definitely weren’t the last eight years, and the enormous cost of continuing the tax cuts for the rich—while they insist they don’t need to be paid for---is the absolute HEIGHT of fiscal irresponsibility. There is no “comeback” to that fact, pure and simple. There may be rationalizations, deflections, etc., but the truth is you can’t scream about fiscal responsibility and then insist tax cuts for the rich are good and don’t need to be paid for!

Pizmo, excellently said.

Quote:
primarily motivated to see the "other side" fail

That seems to be all we see here; no serious suggestions about how to improve ANYTHING, just “we defeated you, ain’t that great?” The idea seems to be that nothing is better than anything, that it’s good we go on paying legislators just to stymie each other...I know they think “no government is the best government”, but it ain’t gonna happen, and all they can see is stopping it in its tracks while continuing to pay all their salaries (and all those ancillary salaries of secretaries, pages, parties, etc.) is just fine. It’s the COUNTRY that loses if our government does nothing, but that seems impossible for them to grasp. I don’t want to see Republicans fail; I want to see the parties work together to compromise on good legislation (or at least the best decent compromise can manage), not just sit back and collect salaries so they can sit on their goddamned thumbs!

JS, you completely missed his point. Most things on politics here are divisive; but do you see a lot of crowing on the left JUST for the Republicans’ failures? Frustration and anger, yup, but not only do we not crow nearly as much about simple “failure”, you’re totally ignoring the fact that the thread consists of just as much nastiness toward liberals as anything put up by me or anyone else. I’ve heard this one before, and it’s always amazed me that you guys are so willingly blind to see all the anti-Obama, anti-Dem, anti-Liberal threads put up every day! The ratio might be more even these days because I put up more threads, but when I came here and for a long, long time afterwards the thread list was virtually ALL ugliness pointed at the left.

There’s also the fact that I’m quite willing to put up threads dissing the left, or agreeing in such threads---note just recently the thread about Obama and the other one about Rangle. Exactly how often have you seen anyone on the right put up an anti-Republican thread? I can’t recall any, personally, and I can’t recall many times I’ve seen anyone on the right agree with ANYTHING put up by the left. Sorry, I think the way you paint things is wrong, and that either your partisanship gets in the way or your perception of the thread list is inaccurate.

You prefer PN’s consistent and numerous posts against Britain, “manhos”, “pedophile lesbian rapists”, “Dictator Barack Whatever Whatever Obama”, “John Lennon Shot by CIA Whacker”, or Whozit’s obsession with Obama (not to mention the other idiotic things he puts up)?? Lately PN has backed down SOME and isn’t putting up as much trash, but when I first came here, and I pointed it out a while later, more than HALF the threads put up were PN bullshit, couched in the worst possible terms. And you bitch about ME? Bah...

Personally, I enjoy the GOOD discussions, the intelligent debates, and I put up TONS of stuff having nothing whatsoever to do with politics. How many others do? Or even bother to put up threads at all? Things are not black and white, and you can’t make them so by claiming they are. If anyone else wants to take responsibility for putting up “non-divisive” threads, that would be nice. But few besides PN and I bother to look for interesting stuff very frequently, and his are TOTALLY and viciously one-sided. I look for stuff people might find interesting; I’m a liberal, so naturally I post most about politics things from the left...better than complaining about what I put up, how about others taking responsibility for putting SOMETHING up, rather than riding the coattails of those of us who do? Just a thought.

I’m sure as hell not here to do battle or “win”---nobody here “wins” except those who think they do, and I never think that. I post my opinions, and items from the news, so does virtually everyone else. Sometimes threads start an interesting discussion, sometimes they get heated, sometimes they turn into nothing but snarks. But politics dominates RWED, has since I got here, so unless you or others want to put up non-political material, your gloating is meaningless. You certainly don’t “rub salt” into anything you say about ME...that would indicate first that there’s a wound to rub salt into, for one thing.

Essentially: at least I TRY. Bitching and moaning when offering nothing is irrelevant.

[/rant]

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:13 AM

Relax Niki, as I said the other day ...you're fine. I only threw your name into the post because you create many threads which seem to me to be nothing more than bloodlust sport of bashing, mocking, and denigrating people and groups that I generally like and support. You've every right to do it, but I doubt you even are aware of how agitating your posts are for some of us to read sometimes. I usually exercise restraint and let it go. The others you mentioned are what they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Of course I know anti-Repub threads annoy the right. They couldn't do otherwise, especially those here (with exception to you). Many of the anti-lib statements here annoy me, and they're couched, I say again, in much more vociferous terms than ANYTHING I write.

My opinions are my opinions, and I think an awful lot of what the Repubs and Tea Party (candidates and elected officials) espouse is worth mocking. But I also make an effort to post things I think might be of interest (it might surprise you to learn, sometimes things that aren't even of interest to ME, but which I've noticed others here exprses an interest in). And things having nothing to do with politics. Seems to me that's a fair offset, considering what many others post.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:50 AM

There's been a big increase in civility here in the last few months, and you've helped make that happen. Keep doing what you do. We all need wake-up calls now and then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 10:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One interesting thing about the latest tax cut compromise: Didja notice that the biggest casualty is "fiscal responsibility"?

Where ARE those fiscally-responsible Repubs, anyway? Oh yeah, that's right... jacking the deficit even higher.

You forget...Republicans get to write the next budget. Unlike Democrats who failed to write a budget at all this year.

I expect tax cuts, spending freezes, and cuts. Economic expansion plus holding down the budget will reduce rather then expand the deficit.

Republicans managed to do this in the 1995-2000 period leading to budget surplus prior to the economic slowdown and 9/11 attacks. The 1995 budget clash shut down the govt, but Clinton was strong enough to defeat the Republicans initial 'no compromise' stancea and then was willing to move to the center and cut a deal before the '96 election. This allowed Republicans like John Kasich to come in and hammer out a real agreement with Clinton's folks while the Country was distracted by the Gingrich/Clinton war of words and the Lewinsky scandal. It fell apart after 2000 because most of the folks involved left office.

In this case I don't think Obama has the political strength, the charisma, or the testicular fortitude to achieve the same result. He caved real good on tax cuts and I heard he bowed to the Republicans when then showed up for the meeting. The man likes to give in almost as much as he likes to bow...must be his French heritage.

I like how Obama has been so angry last couple days. He's saying he wanted to raise taxes on the rich but the mean old Republicans would not let him so in the end he agreed not to raise taxes "because it was best for the country". So he's saying it was best for the country and he was against it...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 10:36 AM

STORYMARK

I not in the hurry to decry divisiveness and/or throw out ill-informed memes about socialism....

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Where ARE those fiscally-responsible Repubs, anyway? Oh yeah, that's right... jacking the deficit even higher.

No one seems willing to address this one. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 11:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, JS, you're very kind.

Story...I'm still waiting for an answer to that one, too. All I've seen is the old cries of "tax cuts reduce the deficit" and "tax cuts stimulate job growth", both of which have been debunked extensively. I'd like to hear how those on the right DO defend unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, hopefully with some VIABLE points, but thus far...silence.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Story...I'm still waiting for an answer to that one, too.

Well, for my part, I have no answer. I'm not a republican, and I never believed they were fiscally responsible.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 1:44 PM

STORYMARK

Golly, apparently the fiscal conservatives 'round here have turned tail and run.

Or, they were just bullshitters to begin with.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nonetheless, the question IS a valid one, however much our trolls might try to deflect it. The Republicans are consistently screaming about the deficit and how they want to be fiscally responsible; yet they most definitely weren’t the last eight years, and the enormous cost of continuing the tax cuts for the rich—while they insist they don’t need to be paid for---is the absolute HEIGHT of fiscal irresponsibility. There is no “comeback” to that fact, pure and simple. There may be rationalizations, deflections, etc., but the truth is you can’t scream about fiscal responsibility and then insist tax cuts for the rich are good and don’t need to be paid for!

Thank you, Niki, for making my point more explicit.

The way I see it, the right has no commitment to "fiscal responsibility" at all. "Fiscal responsibility" is just another term for "keeping the wealthy in cash", as are "free enterprise", "freedom", "small government", "accountability", "individualism" and "trickle down economics".

The real, basic motivation behind all of this is that some folks believe that society should be a gladiatorial sport for most, set up by a few very wealthy, on the ridiculous hope that they too might be one of the uber-wealthy tomorrow.

Seriously.

Nobody here has ever showed that extreme differences in wealth, low taxes, or small government promote economic growth. In fact, the opposite is true. Repeated attempts at trickle down have brought us to where we are today... a failed economy from a failed policy. It's gotten to the point where nobody talks about trickle down anymore, it's become an economic laughing stock. So now they use other code words. But stop listening to what the right says, and look at what they do. The time of our greatest growth was when taxes on the wealthy were at 90%. 90%! But somehow, people think that corporations rain manna from the heavens, and are really just benign agencies that want to make life good for everyone: yet another rationalization.

So all of the words like freedom, small government, growth, fiscal responsibility are really just code words for "I promote greed because I too want to be really really stinking rich some day, even if others have to die to make that happen". And I challenge anyone to show me otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But somehow, people think that corporations rain manna from the heavens, and are really just benign agencies that want to make life good for everyone.

People? Who here on RWED thinks that?

ETA:

Quote:
So all of the words like freedom, small government, growth, fiscal responsibility are really just code words for "I promote greed because I too want to be really really stinking rich some day, even if others have to die to make that happen".

There is nothing wrong with those words or those ideals. They have just been usurped by liars and crooks. I think a distinction should be made between real freedom and fake "freedom," real fiscal responsibility and fake "fiscal responsibility."

That is to say, don't judge communism based only on Stalin and Mao. The same ideals could be implemented by more honorable people and get vastly different results.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, Jongsstraw, DT, Wulfie, and Geezer. Your basic pro-corporate libertarian who has this notion that if only business could be business (without that pesky government interfering) then everything would be fine with the world. If I think about it longer, I'll come up with more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, Jongsstraw, DT, Wulfie, and Geezer. Your basic pro-corporate libertarian. If I think about it longer, I'll come up with more.

Please do come up with more. Rap and Wulfie, well, who takes them seriously? I don't know enough about Jong and Geezer. I hope they see this and can confirm or deny it.

I know that DT should not be in that group. One, he is not libertarian. And two, he hates corporations as much as I do.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes. But.

There is only one way to fight corporations, and that is to band together and change the laws which govern them, and which govern trade. Unless you take that step, you're living in some kind of self-defeating fantasy about how the world "should" work (but doesn't).

So people adopt all kind of self-defeating mantras which guarantee they will fail. One is the whole thing about being "fair". (Sorry Tony, to drag you into this). Does anyone seriously think that most of the really, really wealthy got there by being "fair"? Or that "fair" enters into their conversation much?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with those words or those ideals. They have just been usurped by liars and crooks. I think a distinction should be made between real freedom and fake "freedom," real fiscal responsibility and fake "fiscal responsibility." That is to say, don't judge communism based only on Stalin and Mao. The same ideals could be implemented by more honorable people and get vastly different results.

I was going to say very cynically that I don't believe in ideals, but the reality is that- of course, I do.

I understand... or believe I understand... the fundamental strengths and weaknesses, not only of so-called capitalism (which always evolves to monopolism) but of competing economic systems. I also believe that I understand the strengths and weaknesses of various form of government, including "big" government. I understand that power concentrates over time. My ideal is that others will also look at the same problems in a realistic sense.... not with the gloss of brainwashing... and that eventually we will all be able to construct a society- a government, an economy- in which everyone will be able to control their own destiny, both individually and collectively. At times, group interests will trump individual ones. That IS the nature of being in a group. There is no such thing a perfect freedom for everyone. But right now, most people have very little to say about their destiny. They have no control over the most important thing in their lives: whether they can find a job and how much they get paid. People are so used to competing at the bottom of the barrel for a limited number pf paying jobs (when in reality, there is a lot of useful work that needs doing!) that having ANY control over that aspect is ... well, literally unimaginable.

It is far easier to imagine being really really really rich, even if the chance of that is about 0.00001%

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is only one way to fight corporations, and that is to band together and change the laws which govern them, and which govern trade.

That there is only one way is an assumption. The world is full of ideologies that "there is only one way, and that way is mine." Hell, I just did it myself on the Afghan women thread. Doesn't make the assumption true.

Of course, I want to see corporate personhood dissolved. But beyond that, we need to take out all laws that make small business prohibitively expensive and unviable; strengthen the corporation's natural enemy, its competition. See, your way and my way for fighting corporations have some overlap, but takes different directions. DT's way and mine have some overlap, but takes different directions too. Right here, there are already 3 ways to fight corporations. You are simply convinced that your way is the only RIGHT way and the only EFFECTIVE way. Well, we with the "other" ways naturally don't agree. I know that won't change your mind, but it needs to be stated.

Quote:
One is the whole thing about being "fair". (Sorry Tony, to drag you into this). Does anyone seriously think that most of the really, really wealthy got there by being "fair"? Or that "fair" enters into their conversation much?

Again, different value systems produce different solutions. Just because criminals aren't fair doesn't mean the police will always fail unless they play unfairly too. Just because criminals deserve unfairness doesn't mean we have to sully our souls and stoop to their level to implement justice.

It makes sense to support fair solutions and hold onto a moral high ground in our battles. Otherwise, I believe we'll simply be bigger and stronger criminals than the ones we hope to destroy. Maybe that is ok with you. But pardon if it is not ok with me.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
Everything I say is just my opinion and should not be interpreted as fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 4:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That there is only one way is an assumption... See, your way and my way for fighting corporations have some overlap, but takes different directions. DT's way and mine have some overlap, but takes different directions too. Right here, there are already 3 ways to fight corporations. You are simply convinced that your way is the only RIGHT way and the only EFFECTIVE way. Well, we with the "other" ways naturally don't agree. I know that won't change your mind, but it needs to be stated.

Good point, and worth further discussion. However, I really think that being anti-government first and anti-corporate second is shooting yourself in the foot, or worse, bc the real rot is corporations. Democracies can more easily be brought to heel*.

Quote:
Again, different value systems produce different solutions. Just because criminals aren't fair doesn't mean the police will always fail unless they play unfairly too. Just because criminals deserve unfairness doesn't mean we have to sully our souls and stoop to their level to implement justice. It makes sense to support fair solutions and hold onto a moral high ground in our battles. Otherwise, I believe we'll simply be bigger and stronger criminals than the ones we hope to destroy. Maybe that is ok with you. But pardon if it is not ok with me.

I also believe in being fair, but not on Tony's sense. Tony has his definition, and he wants to apply it to those who'll simply roll over him. That doesn't seem to be moral, it looks more like enabling.

*ETA: To be perfectly clear, what I mean was: democratic governments can be more easily brought to heel by citizens when the government goes astray. Corporations by their nature are the antithesis of a democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 4:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Golly, apparently the fiscal conservatives 'round here have turned tail and run.

Or, they were just bullshitters to begin with.

No. Just bored and tired w/ fighting w/ lunatics who want more and more of other people's money.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 5:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, the rich keep taking my money. I want it back.

And you ARE cutting and running. Any time your point is indefensible, you suddenly get "bored". I could point to dozens of other threads, literally, the most recent being this one and the previous being the "Do We Want to be Like Mexico?" thread.

Good job!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 6:01 AM

America loves a winner!

How do ' the rich ' keep taking your money ? Explain this to me.

You're giving them your money, you moron, freely. And then you're whining about it.

( Unlike government, which uses the "legal " threat of force to TAKE your money from you, like it or not )

The Mexico thread ? Not only was it getting absurdly off topic, but we've already had those debates, time and time again. Yes, bored is the correct word, for having to fight battles already won, more than a few times.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
However, I really think that being anti-government first and anti-corporate second is shooting yourself in the foot, or worse, bc the real rot is corporations. Democracies can more easily be brought to heel*.

I can certainly understand that perspective. It is very persuasive. If government were unanimous or overwhemingly voluntary, I would even agree.

If I may, I would like to clarify my anti-govt and anti-corp positions. My ideological foundation is freedom or anarchy, which can be defined as power/force in small or individual denominations. Both govt and corporations concentrate power/force in large, monolithic denominations. Yeah, fuck that. But when you start going down the scale, I am much more tolerant of small local governments and small business than you might think. That is why I bill myself as anarcho-libertarian. I am ok with some govt. I am ok with some capitalism. The smaller the better.

So if you were to pit a small local govt against a big national corporation, I would come down on the govt's side before supporting the corporation, ie. be anti-corp first, anti-govt second. If I had to use a label, I would say I am pro-small and anti-big.

Quote:
That doesn't seem to be moral, it looks more like enabling.

I can't speak for Tony. But I think a lot of libertarian "fairness" proposals are useless or harmful on their own. They only have meaning if implemented with revolutionary change at all levels of society.

For example, I am in favor of abolishing income taxes, period. On its own, it definitely is enabling. But enact it at the same time as the abolition of corporate personhood, capital gains tax breaks, tax-free resource drains, and all the other loopholes that enable wealthy people not to pay taxes etc, and it makes a little bit more sense.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 6:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It is not just Libertarianism, but almost all philosophies to overhaul society. Such philosophies require changes in multiple areas simultaneously to be effective.

For my own part, I think it is important to remember that governments enable corporate abuses. If the power of government is attenuated, then the power of corporations is attenuated.

I am reminded of Deadwood, a television show about a town that has no laws. To paraphrase some dialogue from Deadwood:

Antagonist: You can't stop me, there's no law here.

Protagonist: Oh? Then there's no law against me blowing your fucking head off.

* Note that this example should not be misconstrued as an advocacy for blowing anyone's fucking head off.

The fact that the government can step in and forcibly end strikes is an example of where the government is handicapping the will of the people and their ability to negotiate better deals with their employers. There are myriad cases where the police have been called in- not to prevent violence- but rather to enforce violence on the side of business.

This is but a small example of how government is misused to enable big business to act with impunity. Essentially, the golden rule is that the ones with the gold make the rules. Weakening government means weakening the rules that gold can buy, and this is appealing to me.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, Jongsstraw, DT, Wulfie, and Geezer. Your basic pro-corporate libertarian who has this notion that if only business could be business (without that pesky government interfering) then everything would be fine with the world. If I think about it longer, I'll come up with more.

You do know that I am staunchly Pro-Capitalist, but I'm no Libertarian. I believe there's a role for the Government in business, and that role should be one of stringent and timely law enforcement of the guidelines and laws established to protect the average American from fraud and national economic mayhem.

As far as the national debt goes.....What makes you think any of us Republicans/Conservatives were pleased in any way when Bush pissed away Clinton's surplus? I certainly wasn't. His Congress betrayed everything we believe in economically. And they paid a price for their arrogant policies; they lost all of Congress to the Dems. But I don't hang Bush like you do for all of it either. Never forget that in the 4 years that Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House she and her fellow Dems added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:44 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The real, basic motivation behind all of this is that some folks believe that society should be a gladiatorial sport for most, set up by a few very wealthy, on the ridiculous hope that they too might be one of the uber-wealthy tomorrow.

Sig, thank YOU for putting succinctly what I believe 100%.

Quote:
The real, basic motivation behind all of this is that some folks believe that society should be a gladiatorial sport for most, set up by a few very wealthy, on the ridiculous hope that they too might be one of the uber-wealthy tomorrow.

as well as

Quote:
So all of the words like freedom, small government, growth, fiscal responsibility are really just code words for "I promote greed because I too want to be really really stinking rich some day, even if others have to die to make that happen".

It’s what I’ve believed for quite some time; to me, it’s the only possible explanation for everyone BUT the rich to vote and believe things against their own interests. It’s like the lottery; very, very few win and the odds against anyone winning are staggering, but people will keep on buying tickets...

However, I do think there’s more to it than that. The basic premise of “taxes” angers just about everyone, and there are libertarian beliefs that fly in the face of taxing anyone, and/or taxing anyone disproportionately. I disagree with those beliefs, but I think they come into it as well. Whether “maybe I’ll get rich someday” feeds into that for some, I can’t say.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:44 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS, I believe that’s a very valid point:

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with those words or those ideals. They have just been usurped by liars and crooks. I think a distinction should be made between real freedom and fake "freedom," real fiscal responsibility and fake "fiscal responsibility."

That is to say, don't judge communism based only on Stalin and Mao. The same ideals could be implemented by more honorable people and get vastly different results.

Unfortunately our society, to me, uses those words a buzz words and most people don’t even THINK about what they really mean, they just sound good.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, we’ve been here before on this:

Quote:
Does anyone seriously think that most of the really, really wealthy got there by being "fair"? Or that "fair" enters into their conversation much?

It can go back and forth forever, as it has here before. Personally, I agree with you, but I know there are exceptions and I know sometimes motivation doesn’t take into account “fair” when it might, if unfairness were pointed out. I think there’s a certain disconnect between the very wealthy and the rest, a mentality if you will, which explains a lot of their actions and beliefs, and the actions and beliefs of those who support them.

In TODAY’s America, I think “fair” is a concept which has been long lost. I keep hearing people say “you should be able to keep what you earn”, yet that is such a complex issue with so many variables, I don’t see how they can make that flat statement. Just getting into “keep” and “earn” can get into incredible complexities. I can’t understand people defending those who have such an enormously disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country, and how they got there; I don’t think the methods of “getting there” necessarily involve “unfairness” on the part of the wealthy (while sometimes it definitely DOES), as often I think it involves a disconnect from the rest of society, unknowingly benefiting from things created/put in place by others, and many other things. I just think the disparity itself should preclude any thinking person from not recognizing something’s wrong there, rather than defending their right to be so INCREDIBLY wealthy compared to everyone else. I see feudal society reflected in that mentality...I imagine many serfs simply believed their overlords had the right to be as disproportionately wealthy compared to themselves, but I don’t understand how we haven’t moved past that...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

How do the rich keep “taking” our money? That’s easy. They have the power to achieve by doing things which are immoral because they have the money to “buy” those abilities. Ergo they buy legislators to pass laws which give them money, and given some of that is my money, they get richer off it and I lose. They form monopolies so that the things I need to survive cost me disproportionately, so they get richer off it and I lose. They run in different circles, among the equally powerful, equally rich, so make deals which give them the advantage over me, and in a lifetime, the odds of my being able to fight back are minimal, if even existent. They “take” the money I invest or put in savings and use it to further their own wealth---as seen recently, to the detriment of the people who actually earned that money and tried to invest it wisely. They buy up other smaller companies and take the jobs away from those who were earning a living at those jobs. Competition doesn’t work like it’s supposed to when some have the money to buy power to make themselves richer.

You and your friends only see “taking” our money as something the government does. The fact is that the rich and powerful have just as many ways to take our money as the government...not by law, but by utilization of power to create an uneven playing field. Money begets money; money begets power; power begets power. I’m not talking about those who started from the ground floor, tho’ there are some of those too. But mostly I’m talking about those who were born in situations which “gave” them advantages, in education, in getting jobs, in starting OUT wealthy.

The government isn’t the only one who “takes” our money---they’re just the most obvious so the easiest to blame, partly because it’s harder to recognize all the ways the rich “take” money and opportunities from us, while taxes are right out there in the open.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS, government has never been and will never be unanimous; less so the larger the society. When has small local government ever been able to hold its power when the society within which it works attains a large population base? I’m not aware of any where that’s happened, and I think it’s illogical that it ever can in a large population. A country is always led by a central government, and the central government always makes decisions which aren’t unanimously agreed upon. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. One small government which decides to approach a problem one way will be different from the small government next to it. So, as we’ve seen before, people cross from one to the other for the benefits. But that doesn’t mean the first government changes; often it retains it’s choices despite becoming poorer for them, so becomes less functional.

Let’s look at civil rights. Poor states have decided on laws which are anathema to other states, but many of their population are too poor to emigrate out, so even tho’ the laws are unfair to them, they’re stuck in that government. That’s true of the South, and those who say civil rights would have won in the end even if the central government hadn’t stepped in, I disagree with. Some poorer states would STILL be clinging to laws unfair to minorities, even tho’ they’ve lost wealth because of it, in my view. Governments are always unfair to some on an ideological basis, in the face of illogical results, and I see that as devolving into feudal states, rather than being something which evolves into continuity.

The fallacy I see in your analogy, Anthony, is that it ends up with those with the most power being most able to blow the head off those with whom they disagree. In a way, that explains why anarchy never succeeds in societies; some form of power always rises to the top by way of its power. Corporations, unhindered, gain the power to enslave their society; if there is no curb on them, they will behave naturally to enhance their own wealth and best interests; given they have the power, they maintain and enhance that power at the expense of those they control.

I think for all the cases you can name where government forcibly ended strikes are way outnumbered by those where government protected people’s ability TO strike. How many times did those with the power stop people from striking by force to keep the status quo, and were successful? The argument goes both ways, but I see government acting MORE OFTEN to protect people’s right to demand fairness. Nothing is 100%, nothing works perfectly, but I believe in our history, government has helped curb corporate abuses more than it has hurt. Corruption occurs everywhere, in corporations as much as in government, but I think when weighed in the balance, private greed would succeed if left unhampered more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I’m with JS, and in a perfect world it would work:

Quote:
I believe there's a role for the Government in business, and that role should be one of stringent and timely law enforcement of the guidelines and laws established to protect the average American from fraud and national economic mayhem.

It’s not a perfect world, so there end up being pluses and minuses. It will never work completely the way JS says, but I believe in America we have achieved more of a balance than many other countries. For me, it’s a matter of either government become too powerful or corporations/individuals becoming too powerful; we have somewhat of a balance between the two. Not a good balance, but a better one than many.

JS, if you want to blame the Dems for some of the incredible debt, then you have to take into account how many times the Dems didn’t like things but went along because they knew if they didn’t, a Republican President would veto whatever they tried to do. You also have to take into account that, after 9/11, almost everyone was more willing to give away things to attain what they believed was security. Many compromises have to take place to get anything done; which is exactly why I am angry at the Republicans for now saying “no compromise, we’ll just stop everything”. For me, you’d have to cite specific issues where Dems agreed to things that grew the debt and look at WHY they did so. Which is not to say they didn’t have bad motives for some of them, but it’s not black and white, is what I’m saying.

(ETA: Is this any better than one long, run-on response; should I break it down into larger blocks or keep them small blocks directed at specific people? I see others doing it, an I know my replies tend to be long, but as I come here only in the mornings, it's the only way I know to respond to all the posts I read. It's a conundrum...)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:09 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
What makes you think any of us Republicans/Conservatives were pleased in any way when Bush pissed away Clinton's surplus?

Well, they sure were quiet about their displeasure at the time.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:22 AM

computer's a bit messed up today!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
What makes you think any of us Republicans/Conservatives were pleased in any way when Bush pissed away Clinton's surplus?

Well, they sure were quiet about their displeasure at the time.

Good point. Maybe we try to look the other way when our guys screw up out of some feelings of loyalty, misguided that it may often be. You Dems usually do the same, but this intra-Party war with Obama on the taxes is admirable to see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:26 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:46 AM