Momahr Kadaffy Duck, the dick tator bye bye, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Momahr Kadaffy Duck, the dick tator bye bye, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

If the Libyan dictator is still alive, he is sure to be on the run or in hiding. Tripoli AND his compound have been taken over. It is safe to say he is no longer in control.

Bye bye you human piece of shit, glad to see you go.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
People still do love there

People still do love there blood sports, nothing better than a fight to the death.

 

Its not like its going to change anything. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:People still do

Tapey wrote:

People still do love there blood sports, nothing better than a fight to the death.

 

Its not like its going to change anything. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

I doubt very seriously that this country is going to put up with another dictator taking over. These younger people are far too connected to the rest of the world.  It could be taken over by another dictator sure, but considering their reaction to Daffy dickhead, I don't think these people will put up with another dictator taking over.

Daffy is done and I am glad he is.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Don't get me wrong I am glad

Don't get me wrong I am glad he is gone as well, and truth be told I don't think there will be another dictator taking over.

 

Its just Democracy? Dictator? Whats the differance when the people on top are just only looking out for themselves. If The new Libya is not the most corrupt place on earth I will be surprised.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bye bye you human piece of shit,.....

 Well, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this seems like its a grab to control the OIL Fields, as was done in Iraq, {footnote} I have read that the real reason that the USA invaded Iraq was because Saddam was trying to change the oil trade by using the 'Dinar' instead off the US Dollar, and guess what ! That exactly what Moammar Qaddafi was trying to do, PLUS China was starting to put in Oil pipes, so that they could control the Oil Fields, not until I watched "Inside Job" did I ever believe any of these Conspiracy's,then when I saw The HBO film about the control that the Banks have on the whole World really, (I think it was up to 12 men to stop the collapse of the economic systems of the Western World) is when I thought to myself WTF is going on here ! All of this talk about Qaddafi is ready to leave Libya is part of a psychological warfare that the USA and NATO is controlling, at least that's what Phillis Bennet (she's a policy analyst at the UN ) check her out here ~ www.democracynow.org/2011/8/23/as_fighting_continues_in_tripoli_a

Signature ? How ?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Open letter to the asshole:

 

Do you want to kill yourself quietly or do you want your execution on youtube the same as happened to Saddam?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Open letter to the asshole:

 

Do you want to kill yourself quietly or do you want your execution on youtube the same as happened to Saddam?

 

There is another option, Angola have offered him a nice place o stay I believe, he might be there already.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Answers in Gene

Tapey wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Open letter to the asshole:

 

Do you want to kill yourself quietly or do you want your execution on youtube the same as happened to Saddam?

 

There is another option, Angola have offered him a nice place o stay I believe, he might be there already.

Yea, he may be out of the country, sure, but he no longer controls Libya and no matter where he goes there will be a bounty on his head. Its not like he has an army protecting him now.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Open letter to the asshole:

 

Do you want to kill yourself quietly or do you want your execution on youtube the same as happened to Saddam?

 

I'll take "Stick a fork in him" for 100 Alex.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 Guess I am a cynic, but I

 Guess I am a cynic, but I would put my money on a new dictator, oligarchy or other authoritarian government taking over. Libya does not have the groundwork to implement anything that approaches a western democracy. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll limit my post to "Good

I'll limit my post to "Good riddance"

 

Also, I have first dibs on his wardrobe... and his supremely attractive all-female guard.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Guess

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Guess I am a cynic, but I would put my money on a new dictator, oligarchy or other authoritarian government taking over. Libya does not have the groundwork to implement anything that approaches a western democracy. 

So what you are saying is that  the money of one vs the ethical morality of checks and balances wont have a hold. So money equals power? But that wont happen in America.

OOPS I', sorry, I guess the airline bubbles in the 80s and the dot.com bubbles in the 90s and the bank, car companies of the 2000s was your beloved free market.

You still don't get it. Daffy ruled because he had money. China is kicking our ass because they have money.

You spend so much time defending "no rules" but Daffy got power because of the blind ignorance of his followerss and no checks and balances. Your attitude is not that far from his. He had no rules and he had money so he made up his own rules.

Daffy was a capitalist and you should cheer for him. "Leave me alone" "Let me do what I want" That is what he did and he was successful for 40 years not giving a fuck about whom he had to step on to get power.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Guess I am a cynic, but I would put my money on a new dictator, oligarchy or other authoritarian government taking over. Libya does not have the groundwork to implement anything that approaches a western democracy. 

So what you are saying is that  the money of one vs the ethical morality of checks and balances wont have a hold. So money equals power? But that wont happen in America.

OOPS I', sorry, I guess the airline bubbles in the 80s and the dot.com bubbles in the 90s and the bank, car companies of the 2000s was your beloved free market.

You still don't get it. Daffy ruled because he had money. China is kicking our ass because they have money.

You spend so much time defending "no rules" but Daffy got power because of the blind ignorance of his followerss and no checks and balances. Your attitude is not that far from his. He had no rules and he had money so he made up his own rules.

Daffy was a capitalist and you should cheer for him. "Leave me alone" "Let me do what I want" That is what he did and he was successful for 40 years not giving a fuck about whom he had to step on to get power.

 

 

Is this the same Brian37 who flips out on people calling Bama a communist? Now you compare me to Gaddafi? For your info, Gaddafi seized power using guns in a military coup in 1969. If anything, he is evidence that money is not equal to power. He seized power using guns and used guns to seize his wealth. Now he lost power when the rebels had more guns than he had even though he still had money. 

 

If you want to have a serious discussion regarding economic philosophies or why I believe Libya has traded one tyrant for another I am happy to have that discussion. But if you just want to throw out absurd accusations comparing me to tyrants and authoritarians you can just fuck off. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Is this

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is this the same Brian37 who flips out on people calling Bama a communist? Now you compare me to Gaddafi? For your info, Gaddafi seized power using guns in a military coup in 1969. If anything, he is evidence that money is not equal to power. He seized power using guns and used guns to seize his wealth. Now he lost power when the rebels had more guns than he had even though he still had money. 

 

If you want to have a serious discussion regarding economic philosophies or why I believe Libya has traded one tyrant for another I am happy to have that discussion. But if you just want to throw out absurd accusations comparing me to tyrants and authoritarians you can just fuck off.

'K, but I still get to keep his wardrobe and personal attache of female guards.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving's concern may

Beyond Saving's concern may well be justified.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
It's good to get rid of

It's good to get rid of Kaddafi. Offering him asylum might have helped to save more lives. But Kaddafi's head and balls in a jar in front of their new political building would be a powerful symbol of national pride. 
I don't know what system of government will the new Libya choose, but I hope there will be many young people in it, who grew up with Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Wikileaks and Piratebay Smiling

Ken G. wrote:

 Well, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this seems like its a grab to control the OIL Fields, as was done in Iraq, {footnote} I have read that the real reason that the USA invaded Iraq was because Saddam was trying to change the oil trade by using the 'Dinar' instead off the US Dollar, and guess what ! That exactly what Moammar Qaddafi was trying to do, PLUS China was starting to put in Oil pipes, so that they could control the Oil Fields, not until I watched "Inside Job" did I ever believe any of these Conspiracy's,then when I saw The HBO film about the control that the Banks have on the whole World really, (I think it was up to 12 men to stop the collapse of the economic systems of the Western World) is when I thought to myself WTF is going on here ! All of this talk about Qaddafi is ready to leave Libya is part of a psychological warfare that the USA and NATO is controlling, at least that's what Phillis Bennet (she's a policy analyst at the UN ) check her out here ~ www.democracynow.org/2011/8/23/as_fighting_continues_in_tripoli_a

Yeah, pretty much. Our civilization is (to all other civilizations) unbelievably stupid. We estabilish ourselves on a single resource which is scarce, soon to be depleted and we damn well know it. And yet we do nothing about it. Nothing intelligent anyway, making up false pretenses for oil wars is not the case. 

And yet I believe that the series of revolutions in Islamic countries is not U.S. attempt to claim the oil, it is a genuine people's call for freedom or action. One that was already heard and obeyed in Iceland, Spain and maybe London, one that will hopefully get to the entirely corrupt hole called Czech Republic. Every new riot gives me hope, that one day maybe I will have a nice little riot right in Prague, directed at the Parliament and other government buildings, continuing in the fine historical tradition of defenestration, no matter of the bars they recently installed on the windows.
Yes, my president deserves to fly too. The pen-stealing bastard is an "economist" (anti-ecology nut in fact) and had the most influential positions in government, yet he did absolutely nothing to stop gigantic thefts of taxes and state property (most likely he shared the profit as everyone) and did not build the state financial reserve when there was a chance. 
Pacifistic as I am, I will not regret a single political death, no matter how violent. I just have 300 dictators pretending to be democratically elected (which they aren't, due to big party stability, candidate list machinations and business mafia support) and many dictators took much better care of their people than mine.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Guess I am a cynic, but I would put my money on a new dictator, oligarchy or other authoritarian government taking over. Libya does not have the groundwork to implement anything that approaches a western democracy. 

So what you are saying is that  the money of one vs the ethical morality of checks and balances wont have a hold. So money equals power? But that wont happen in America.

OOPS I', sorry, I guess the airline bubbles in the 80s and the dot.com bubbles in the 90s and the bank, car companies of the 2000s was your beloved free market.

You still don't get it. Daffy ruled because he had money. China is kicking our ass because they have money.

You spend so much time defending "no rules" but Daffy got power because of the blind ignorance of his followerss and no checks and balances. Your attitude is not that far from his. He had no rules and he had money so he made up his own rules.

Daffy was a capitalist and you should cheer for him. "Leave me alone" "Let me do what I want" That is what he did and he was successful for 40 years not giving a fuck about whom he had to step on to get power.

 

 

Is this the same Brian37 who flips out on people calling Bama a communist? Now you compare me to Gaddafi? For your info, Gaddafi seized power using guns in a military coup in 1969. If anything, he is evidence that money is not equal to power. He seized power using guns and used guns to seize his wealth. Now he lost power when the rebels had more guns than he had even though he still had money. 

 

If you want to have a serious discussion regarding economic philosophies or why I believe Libya has traded one tyrant for another I am happy to have that discussion. But if you just want to throw out absurd accusations comparing me to tyrants and authoritarians you can just fuck off. 

 

No you are NOT anything like him. But the climate in this country is paid off a government by the uber rich that has caused the economic mess because of the foxes garding the hen house. "I earned it, therefor I should be able to do what I want."

It is your attitude I don't like. You constantly selling the idea of less government good in an environment where the lawmakers are already paid off by big money, which caused this mess and want to compound an already bad situation by suggesting less oversight.

NO I am not compairing you to a tyrant, but again, you completely miss my point.

EVERYONE in in power in any country, be it a party, a family or a person, is a capitalist. You have to have money to have power.

What keeps us free is a constitution that allows and demands separation of powers and oversight. You think seem to have this utopia bullshit attitude that the private sector will never do bad things and should not have any oversight.

2 percent of our population is fucking the rest of us over by selling our jobs to the lowest overseas bidders, by turning Wall Street and banks into casinos, and robbing the middle class and poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

And you wont even listen to Warren Buffet who said "Yea raise my taxes, I can afford it".

I am sarcastically saying you should cheer for Daffy because he is a capatialist. "Capitalism" by itself is not a government system. Until you accept that you wont understand what I am saying.

Daffy was uber rich, that by itself does not make one moral.

Our current economic system in America is immoral because those at the top don't give one ratts ass about the other two classes.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:No you are NOT

Brian37 wrote:

No you are NOT anything like him. But the climate in this country is paid off a government by the uber rich that has caused the economic mess because of the foxes garding the hen house. "I earned it, therefor I should be able to do what I want."

Exactly. I earned it. Gaddafi didn't earn his money, he stole it, using guns. Something I argue against, even if it is being stolen for a "good cause".

 

Brian37 wrote:

EVERYONE in in power in any country, be it a party, a family or a person, is a capitalist. You have to have money to have power.

No, you have to have guns. Gaddafi did not have power because he had money. He had power because he had guns and murdered all of his opposition. He had money after he stole it using his guns, because people who steal generally like to steal money. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

What keeps us free is a constitution that allows and demands separation of powers and oversight. You think seem to have this utopia bullshit attitude that the private sector will never do bad things and should not have any oversight.

And I have consistently spoken out against anyone using guns to force others. The governments role ought to be to make sure no person or entity is using force against another. You think the governments role is to use force as a means to an end that you believe is better. I don't. WTF does my belief have anything to do with Gaddafi? Who created a tyrannical and very powerful government that ruled through force? I believe government force ought to be used at the absolute minimum. The exact opposite of Gaddafi's regime. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

2 percent of our population is fucking the rest of us over by selling our jobs to the lowest overseas bidders, by turning Wall Street and banks into casinos, and robbing the middle class and poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Oh? Robbing you? How much did you pay in taxes last year? Did you pay your "fair share"? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am sarcastically saying you should cheer for Daffy because he is a capatialist. "Capitalism" by itself is not a government system. Until you accept that you wont understand what I am saying.

And my main concern is freedom and liberty. I don't support all "capitalism" I very clearly support laissez-faire capitalism a very specific form of capitalism that was initially protected by our Constitution which very clearly limited the federal governments power over our economic system. You constantly try to equivocate my beliefs with China, Libya etc. All of which are radically different from what I advocate as all of them are illustrations of large intrusive governments. I support a very small, unintrusive government. FYI, Libya was a centrally planned economy, it was not capitalist in any economic use of the term and has virtually no free market. On the list of economic freedom, it is near the bottom. http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

 

Brian37 wrote:

Our current economic system in America is immoral because those at the top don't give one ratts ass about the other two classes.

Why should I? If you want more money, go make more. I'm not stopping you.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
capitalism-proof

b37 wrote:
"Capitalism" by itself is not a government system

I would not say it's indipendent from the actual gov. sys., though. If you have capitalism, you don't have much freedom in choosing what government to istitute: you must have money -- a virtual exchangeable value -- and private property. You could go for monarchy, democracy, what you want, but still you have a someone who is more important and someone who is less important. I don't know how much history could supply with data... This could be useful.

More on topic: I think now Gheddafi could be with Berlusconi at Arcore. Maybe trying to kill him. I am a bit ashamed that my idiot country did sign a pact with him.

OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:OT: AiGS, what is

luca wrote:

OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?

hint:Open Office

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote: OT: AiGS, what

doublepost

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
gnagna

Kapkao wrote:
luca wrote:
OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?
hint:Open Office

Who needs openoffice, a java app which weights a ton, to write a frikkin text message?!

Also WHY can't I EDIT my messaaaage? I made a mistake, I wrote 'istitute' instead of 'institute'!


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote: Kapkao

luca wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
luca wrote:
OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?
hint:Open Office

Who needs openoffice, a java app which weights a ton, to write a frikkin text message?!

Also WHY can't I EDIT my messaaaage? I made a mistake, I wrote 'istitute' instead of 'institute'!

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Be glad he doesn’t use MSword, if he did this would happen. Though I understand the need to use an outside program.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
of destiny

Alec Baldwin wrote:
Be glad he doesn’t use MSword, if he did this would happen. Though I understand the need to use an outside program.

You know there's no end to the worst... One could use... MS FRONTPAGE (of doom) !!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Capitalism" does not

"Capitalism" does not require democracy in any sense.

Soviet Russia was often referred to as applying "State Capitalism", and China is currently considered to be "Authoritarian" Capitalism by economists.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 From now on, this song is

Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Capitalism" does not require democracy in any sense.

Soviet Russia was often referred to as applying "State Capitalism", and China is currently considered to be "Authoritarian" Capitalism by economists.

Basically...

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Capitalism" does not require democracy in any sense.

Soviet Russia was often referred to as applying "State Capitalism", and China is currently considered to be "Authoritarian" Capitalism by economists.

This is what Beyond and most of the top 2 percent dont get. ANYTHING left to it's own devices, even in an "open market"(which is what people falsely call capitalism) can be abused. Capitalism is not a form of government, it is just a means to gain resources.

I keep giving Beyond a simple solution to get government smaller. IT'S CALLED RESPONSIBILITY AND GIVING A FUCK.

Even the CEO of Starbucks recently said that instead of donating to political campaigns they should use the money to create jobs. FAN FUCKING TASTIC IDEA, but, even with this, I am suspicious. What kind of jobs? Crappy low paying jobs?

Beyond sells the private sector as if it should be the only entity in an economy with any rights. No, it is one aspect. It is important and needed in an open market, but it cannot nor should it bitch when all it does is tax the middle class and poor to fund it's tax cuts. It cannot bitch when it ships jobs overseas. It cannot bitch when it does not provide affordable health care.

Beyond doesn't want people to turn to government for protection, but the bullies at the top are the ones bullying the other two classes to maintain their monopolies.

The monopoly of money in our politics is creating the same fucking mess that caused the great depression. So again, my challenge to Beyond and his love of the uber rich is to fucking care instead of Neal Bortz bullshit "let them eat cake".

WARREN BUFFET, BILLIONAIRE, "TAX ME MORE I CAN AFFORD IT" He doesn't consider tax robbery, he considers it an investment. Why is a tax cut not considered robbery when GE doesn't pay a fucking dime? So as long as you have money and lawyers and put it down on paper to avoid paying taxes, it is moral?

Get a clue Beyond. Maybe if the top did more on it's own the other two classes wouldn't turn to government.

I am tired of the bullshit attitude that wealth is the only thing that matters in life. I am tired of the bullshit attitude that if you don't work 80 hours a week you deserve to be treated like a criminal. I am tired of the poor being treated as if they are all lazy. I am tired of the bullshit that if taxes go up for the rich the world will end.

It is nothing but fear mongering and blackmail and hording.

I am dirt poor, and I have no beefs at all paying taxes other than who they tax more. If Warren Buffet is willing to say, "Tax me more, not the middle or poor". Then you Beyond have NO FUCKING EXCUSE.

If I made 40 billion a year and the government took half, I'd be living on the street? Please!

Are you going to call Warren Buffet a socialist or communist? Or maybe he, unlike you has an introspection that is healthy and that once you have way more than you actually need, it is better to help others than to keep it all for yourself.

Beyond keeps trying to make "I earned it, so let me keep it" Which is not my point or even that of Buffet, but a call to introspection. The middle class and poor WILL turn to government until the top realizes it is not the only class in this country. THAT is my point and even Buffet would say the top need to change their attitude.

It is a change in attitude in climate at the top, not a demand to end our open market. But again, until or unless the top starts growing compassion, they cannot bitch when they are the ones that made this mess in the first place.

"LET THEM EAT CAKE"

Nope Beyond, when even those at the top can admit our economy should not be based on "every man for themselves", you have no excuse yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kapkao wrote:

luca wrote:
OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?

hint:Open Office


 

Actually, the windows version does not do that. It is an ubuntu linux thing. That and the forum software hides that code somewhere not worth bothering with.


 

Also, Kap, you can have the chicks but I call dibs on the WMD. Wait! He took the Bush doctrine seriously.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:b37

luca wrote:

b37 wrote:
"Capitalism" by itself is not a government system

I would not say it's indipendent from the actual gov. sys., though. If you have capitalism, you don't have much freedom in choosing what government to istitute: you must have money -- a virtual exchangeable value -- and private property. You could go for monarchy, democracy, what you want, but still you have a someone who is more important and someone who is less important. I don't know how much history could supply with data... This could be useful.

More on topic: I think now Gheddafi could be with Berlusconi at Arcore. Maybe trying to kill him. I am a bit ashamed that my idiot country did sign a pact with him.

OT: AiGS, what is your thing with p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }?

No, we have attitudes in society that treat others as more important and others as less important.

But my boss cannot run the place by himself so how is he more important than me? He just makes more money, nothing more. He is needed, but I am tired of the bullshit that those at the bottom are disposable like garbage.

There is no such thing as an unskilled job. There are just assholes who think a low paying job lacks skill. The people who say this never spend any significant time, if they ever have such a job, doing such jobs.

I risk burns and disease and slipping and falling every single day. The worst my boss has to worry about is a customer complaint. And on top of that I have to, on a busy day keep things moving so they dont get backed up for others. It requires speed and setting priorities. He merely runs the register and counts his money and bosses us around.

Anyone who thinks my job is easy hasn't done it for 6 years, 5 days a week. I don't care if you work as a trash collector, or janitor or conviniance store clerk, EVERY JOB requires skill. The only difference between the CEO and the person at the bottom is the amount of money they make.

Inequity is fine and required in an open market, otherwise if we were all rich or all poor no one would do anything. What I am tired of is the attitude that we should be treated like criminals because of our class.

There is more than one class in this country and I am tired of the bullies at the top treating us falsely like we are the leaches when we are the ones who have paid for their mistakes.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond sells

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond sells the private sector as if it should be the only entity in an economy with any rights. No, it is one aspect. It is important and needed in an open market, but it cannot nor should it bitch when all it does is tax the middle class and poor to fund it's tax cuts. It cannot bitch when it ships jobs overseas. It cannot bitch when it does not provide affordable health care.

No, the only entity that should have any rights is the individual. When individual rights are protected, a free market emerges as a consequence. I'll have to address the "jobs over seas" argument a little more in depth later. It is extremely ignorant when used by the left (shipping over seas! oh no) or the right (those dirty illegals are taking OUR jobs!). The number of jobs is not a fixed number. Someone else getting a job does not necessarily deprive you of one.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WARREN BUFFET, BILLIONAIRE, "TAX ME MORE I CAN AFFORD IT" He doesn't consider tax robbery, he considers it an investment. Why is a tax cut not considered robbery when GE doesn't pay a fucking dime? So as long as you have money and lawyers and put it down on paper to avoid paying taxes, it is moral?

So why does Warren Buffet shell out shitloads of money to accountants and lawyers to cut his own tax rate? Why doesn't he just write out a check to the government for more? Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes himself, I suspect he wants taxes to be a barrier to prevent other people from getting to the level of wealth he has and to increase his own. If you paid attention, you would know that Buffet makes quite a bit of money through high taxes. He was invested in Goldman Sachs & GE http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/warren-buffett-continuing-profit-his-investment-bailout-why-okay, he owns life insurance/reinsurance companies which benefit from high tax rates (especially a high estate tax), he started Berkshire Hathaway Assurance in 2007 which insures government bonds (which means he makes money when local governments borrow money many federal laws offer half payments to cover goodies which cause local governments to borrow half to take advantage of the "free" money). He has also been investing in railroads http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/business/04deal.html, an area that the powers that be in the democrat party have been trying really hard to subsidize. Coincidence? I don't think so.

When he puts his money where his mouth is I'll give him more credibility. When he is routinely investing in industries that benefit from high levels of government spending, I question his "compassion" that makes him call for higher taxes. It is easy to demand higher taxes when you know the result will be big profits for yourself.

You can see what other industries Buffet invests in here http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

 

Our tax code is extremely immoral. It is routinely used to pass out political favors and we ought to do away with the whole thing. Note: I did not vote for anyone who is responsible for the tax credits, bailouts or tarp money that large companies have taken advantage of. I doubt you can say the same, and I doubt it will stop you from voting Bama and straight dem next election too.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am dirt poor, and I have no beefs at all paying taxes other than who they tax more. If Warren Buffet is willing to say, "Tax me more, not the middle or poor". Then you Beyond have NO FUCKING EXCUSE.

What is your excuse? My tax rate is substantially higher than yours. I will pay 50% if you and everyone else pays 50%. The obvious solution is some sort of flat consumption tax or flat income tax where everyone pays the same percentage whatever that percentage may be. Why should any person pay more in terms of percentage than another? Am I somehow getting more benefit from the government than you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Are you going to call Warren Buffet a socialist or communist? Or maybe he, unlike you has an introspection that is healthy and that once you have way more than you actually need, it is better to help others than to keep it all for yourself.

It is good to help others. And I have far more confidence in my own abilities to help others by providing jobs, giving to charity etc. than the government taking my money to give to GE, banks and buy failed auto companies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nope Beyond, when even those at the top can admit our economy should not be based on "every man for themselves", you have no excuse yourself.

 

I thought the ones at the top were the ones who got us into this mess. So why are we listening to them?

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, I find that you have a great point here.

 

Let's say for shits and giggles that we are all gears in a machine. There is no “most important” gear.

 

All the more because of your food service job.

 

Grandma was one of the first women in the USA to go to college and became a professional dietitian. She instilled dad with the ethic that anyone tall enough to stand in front of the stove is old enough to learn how to cook. The ethic continues.

 

The last time I worked in that field, the chef was a Culinary Institute Of America (CIA) graduate. He had a thing about always using cook books. Wow. I had decades of experience before his first day in class. Cook books are instructions on how to cook and therefore apply to those who don't know how to cook. I know what food tastes like.

 

That ass also had a big issue with “rich people”. They deserved stuff that other people did not because of the fact of their money. One discussion which I remember went to a news story about adopted people having the right to know who their real parents were.

 

His position was that rich people should have a right to dump unwanted children and be free from being tracked down decades later. Yah, that happens all the time. Enough to warrant the special protection of which he advocated.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond sells the private sector as if it should be the only entity in an economy with any rights. No, it is one aspect. It is important and needed in an open market, but it cannot nor should it bitch when all it does is tax the middle class and poor to fund it's tax cuts. It cannot bitch when it ships jobs overseas. It cannot bitch when it does not provide affordable health care.

No, the only entity that should have any rights is the individual. When individual rights are protected, a free market emerges as a consequence. I'll have to address the "jobs over seas" argument a little more in depth later. It is extremely ignorant when used by the left (shipping over seas! oh no) or the right (those dirty illegals are taking OUR jobs!). The number of jobs is not a fixed number. Someone else getting a job does not necessarily deprive you of one.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WARREN BUFFET, BILLIONAIRE, "TAX ME MORE I CAN AFFORD IT" He doesn't consider tax robbery, he considers it an investment. Why is a tax cut not considered robbery when GE doesn't pay a fucking dime? So as long as you have money and lawyers and put it down on paper to avoid paying taxes, it is moral?

So why does Warren Buffet shell out shitloads of money to accountants and lawyers to cut his own tax rate? Why doesn't he just write out a check to the government for more? Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes himself, I suspect he wants taxes to be a barrier to prevent other people from getting to the level of wealth he has and to increase his own. If you paid attention, you would know that Buffet makes quite a bit of money through high taxes. He was invested in Goldman Sachs & GE http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/warren-buffett-continuing-profit-his-investment-bailout-why-okay, he owns life insurance/reinsurance companies which benefit from high tax rates (especially a high estate tax), he started Berkshire Hathaway Assurance in 2007 which insures government bonds (which means he makes money when local governments borrow money many federal laws offer half payments to cover goodies which cause local governments to borrow half to take advantage of the "free" money). He has also been investing in railroads http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/business/04deal.html, an area that the powers that be in the democrat party have been trying really hard to subsidize. Coincidence? I don't think so.

When he puts his money where his mouth is I'll give him more credibility. When he is routinely investing in industries that benefit from high levels of government spending, I question his "compassion" that makes him call for higher taxes. It is easy to demand higher taxes when you know the result will be big profits for yourself.

You can see what other industries Buffet invests in here http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

 

Our tax code is extremely immoral. It is routinely used to pass out political favors and we ought to do away with the whole thing. Note: I did not vote for anyone who is responsible for the tax credits, bailouts or tarp money that large companies have taken advantage of. I doubt you can say the same, and I doubt it will stop you from voting Bama and straight dem next election too.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am dirt poor, and I have no beefs at all paying taxes other than who they tax more. If Warren Buffet is willing to say, "Tax me more, not the middle or poor". Then you Beyond have NO FUCKING EXCUSE.

What is your excuse? My tax rate is substantially higher than yours. I will pay 50% if you and everyone else pays 50%. The obvious solution is some sort of flat consumption tax or flat income tax where everyone pays the same percentage whatever that percentage may be. Why should any person pay more in terms of percentage than another? Am I somehow getting more benefit from the government than you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Are you going to call Warren Buffet a socialist or communist? Or maybe he, unlike you has an introspection that is healthy and that once you have way more than you actually need, it is better to help others than to keep it all for yourself.

It is good to help others. And I have far more confidence in my own abilities to help others by providing jobs, giving to charity etc. than the government taking my money to give to GE, banks and buy failed auto companies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nope Beyond, when even those at the top can admit our economy should not be based on "every man for themselves", you have no excuse yourself.

 

I thought the ones at the top were the ones who got us into this mess. So why are we listening to them?

 

 

Oh boy, really?

I am listening to Buffet, not you. I never said all at the top don't give a fuck, just far too many. You are merely trying to dodge your own attitude "let them eat cake".

I am suggesting YOU listen to Buffet instead of condemning the poor and middle class. When he says he can afford it you have no excuse.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Beyond, you have a great point as well.

 

Another skill in my set is designing and building computers. Want one of mine? I charge every cent which the traffic will bear. Because I can.

 

The government regulates lots of industries but they have not seen fit to cover this one. I shall rue the day when my time is legislated to be worth less that what customers are willing to pay.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote: When he says

Brian37 wrote:

 When he says he can afford it you have no excuse.

 

I can't afford a lot of things that Buffet can afford. He has a little bit more money than me. (Like over $50 billion more) and I also pay a higher tax rate than he claims to pay. But afford it or not, I don't think you or the government has a right to my (or anyone else's) money to simply take and redistribute it at will. I will happily provide money to any person or entity that provides me with value in return. I don't believe our current government is providing me with good value. So what is your excuse for not wanting YOUR taxes raised? Obviously, you think the government is providing good value. You should probably pay more. GM is having problems, they probably need more money from you. Good thing we have the government to help out the poor like GM, GE, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac etc. It would be terrible if Buffet lost a few billion when they all went bankrupt.

 

I'm not dodging anything. I have been rather forward and upfront to every question posed to me. You on the other hand seem to continually ignore everything I say and cut & paste the same class warfare rhetoric.

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond sells the private sector as if it should be the only entity in an economy with any rights. No, it is one aspect. It is important and needed in an open market, but it cannot nor should it bitch when all it does is tax the middle class and poor to fund it's tax cuts. It cannot bitch when it ships jobs overseas. It cannot bitch when it does not provide affordable health care.

No, the only entity that should have any rights is the individual. When individual rights are protected, a free market emerges as a consequence. I'll have to address the "jobs over seas" argument a little more in depth later. It is extremely ignorant when used by the left (shipping over seas! oh no) or the right (those dirty illegals are taking OUR jobs!). The number of jobs is not a fixed number. Someone else getting a job does not necessarily deprive you of one.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WARREN BUFFET, BILLIONAIRE, "TAX ME MORE I CAN AFFORD IT" He doesn't consider tax robbery, he considers it an investment. Why is a tax cut not considered robbery when GE doesn't pay a fucking dime? So as long as you have money and lawyers and put it down on paper to avoid paying taxes, it is moral?

So why does Warren Buffet shell out shitloads of money to accountants and lawyers to cut his own tax rate? Why doesn't he just write out a check to the government for more? Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes himself, I suspect he wants taxes to be a barrier to prevent other people from getting to the level of wealth he has and to increase his own. If you paid attention, you would know that Buffet makes quite a bit of money through high taxes. He was invested in Goldman Sachs & GE http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/warren-buffett-continuing-profit-his-investment-bailout-why-okay, he owns life insurance/reinsurance companies which benefit from high tax rates (especially a high estate tax), he started Berkshire Hathaway Assurance in 2007 which insures government bonds (which means he makes money when local governments borrow money many federal laws offer half payments to cover goodies which cause local governments to borrow half to take advantage of the "free" money). He has also been investing in railroads http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/business/04deal.html, an area that the powers that be in the democrat party have been trying really hard to subsidize. Coincidence? I don't think so.

When he puts his money where his mouth is I'll give him more credibility. When he is routinely investing in industries that benefit from high levels of government spending, I question his "compassion" that makes him call for higher taxes. It is easy to demand higher taxes when you know the result will be big profits for yourself.

You can see what other industries Buffet invests in here http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

 

Our tax code is extremely immoral. It is routinely used to pass out political favors and we ought to do away with the whole thing. Note: I did not vote for anyone who is responsible for the tax credits, bailouts or tarp money that large companies have taken advantage of. I doubt you can say the same, and I doubt it will stop you from voting Bama and straight dem next election too.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am dirt poor, and I have no beefs at all paying taxes other than who they tax more. If Warren Buffet is willing to say, "Tax me more, not the middle or poor". Then you Beyond have NO FUCKING EXCUSE.

What is your excuse? My tax rate is substantially higher than yours. I will pay 50% if you and everyone else pays 50%. The obvious solution is some sort of flat consumption tax or flat income tax where everyone pays the same percentage whatever that percentage may be. Why should any person pay more in terms of percentage than another? Am I somehow getting more benefit from the government than you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Are you going to call Warren Buffet a socialist or communist? Or maybe he, unlike you has an introspection that is healthy and that once you have way more than you actually need, it is better to help others than to keep it all for yourself.

It is good to help others. And I have far more confidence in my own abilities to help others by providing jobs, giving to charity etc. than the government taking my money to give to GE, banks and buy failed auto companies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nope Beyond, when even those at the top can admit our economy should not be based on "every man for themselves", you have no excuse yourself.

 

I thought the ones at the top were the ones who got us into this mess. So why are we listening to them?

 

 

I'ts never good for government to help society? I'd say the Hoover damn which was a public project is still providing society with "help".

I never said you were not charitable. I am saying that you are out of your mind if you think the policies over the past 30 years that have caused all these problems are something we should stick with.

Going to a soup kitchen or donating cloths is not the same as paying a livable wage to those at the bottom. When the rich do that that is nothing but another tax deduction and PR bullshit.

My boss's idea of "charity" is to cut back my hours and look for ways to fire me because of the raises the prior owners chose to pay me. I got two raises prior to this new owner and neither of them did I ask for but I damned sure know I am worth it. I don't call my new owner's attitude  charity, even if he donates his time to the Lions club and his local Church on the weekend. I see it for what it is, greed. The Lions club and church crap is just a way for him to gloss over the fact he is fucking me out of a living.

He owns two houses and an Audie. So I find it a little hard to cry for him when he says he cant afford it. The prior owners DID NOT do this to us and that was with them splitting the money 3 ways which our current owner does not have to do.

Ownership is not my issue. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. THAT is my issue.

I don't know if you own a business, but if you ever do, you want to be "charitable" give to your workers directly so they don't have to depend on government. Provide them with livable wages and health care so they don't have to depend on government.

 

THAT is better than charity and it cuts out the middle man you say you don't want involved in your life.

"I cant afford it" is the crocodile tears of the top two percent when if they where honest should say "I don't want to"

At least Buffet is man enough to admit what is really going on.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You take care of your

You take care of your employees you lose the high turnover rate, you increase productivity and you maintain their loyalty. AND if they have what they need outside the job, they are less likely to turn to government. Less dependency on government, more money for both the business owner and the employee.

THAT IS WHAT is going to solve our problems, not the same old bullshit of treating labor as expendable or a race to the bottom.

I don't see competing with China's labor pay and India's labor pay as "charity". I see it as abuse. You may think that is the way to compete globally, I see it as immoral and abusive.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You take care

Brian37 wrote:

You take care of your employees you lose the high turnover rate, you increase productivity and you maintain their loyalty. AND if they have what they need outside the job, they are less likely to turn to government. Less dependency on government, more money for both the business owner and the employee.

THAT IS WHAT is going to solve our problems, not the same old bullshit of treating labor as expendable or a race to the bottom.

I don't see competing with China's labor pay and India's labor pay as "charity". I see it as abuse. You may think that is the way to compete globally, I see it as immoral and abusive.

 

Reminds me of my uncle.  He took over the trucking company in the mid 60s.  The union wanted to come in.  My uncle arranged for all of the employees to be there for the meeting (losing some money as that cut into driving time.)   Donuts, coffee, projector - all set up.  The employees laughed the union guy out of the building.

1. They were already paid higher than union wages.

2. They already had better health care benefits than the union provided.

3. They would have had to pay union dues and fees.

Big lesson there.  And my uncle was an asshole to work for.  He expected - demanded - nothing short of perfection and he let everyone know it.  He had the best drivers in town working for him.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:I'ts never

Brian37 wrote:

I'ts never good for government to help society? I'd say the Hoover damn which was a public project is still providing society with "help".

Never said that. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut from time to time. Do you seriously think that the majority of government funds being spent today are equivalent in the benefit that they provide society as the Hoover dam or the highway system?

 

Brian37 wrote:

I never said you were not charitable. I am saying that you are out of your mind if you think the policies over the past 30 years that have caused all these problems are something we should stick with.

I agree 110%. You are out of your mind if you think the policies we have followed for the last 30 years are something we should stick with. Which is why I am constantly arguing that we should repeal them. Actually, I would go back a bit further and repeal the economic policy we have been following much further than that. It is obvious that the keynesian economic policies we have been following through most of the 20th century are unsustainable. Yet instead of changing direction, our government seems hellbent on doubling down.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Going to a soup kitchen or donating cloths is not the same as paying a livable wage to those at the bottom. When the rich do that that is nothing but another tax deduction and PR bullshit.

And exactly how much is a livable wage? Exactly how should I determine the wage of my employees?

 

Brian37 wrote:

My boss's idea of "charity" is to cut back my hours and look for ways to fire me because of the raises the prior owners chose to pay me. I got two raises prior to this new owner and neither of them did I ask for but I damned sure know I am worth it. I don't call my new owner's attitude  charity, even if he donates his time to the Lions club and his local Church on the weekend. I see it for what it is, greed. The Lions club and church crap is just a way for him to gloss over the fact he is fucking me out of a living.

He owns two houses and an Audie. So I find it a little hard to cry for him when he says he cant afford it. The prior owners DID NOT do this to us and that was with them splitting the money 3 ways which our current owner does not have to do.

Ok, then find a new job or open your own restaurant. Some bosses are assholes. If you don't like him, stop making him richer. 

Ownership is not my issue. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. THAT is my issue.

 

Brian37 wrote:

"I cant afford it" is the crocodile tears of the top two percent when if they where honest should say "I don't want to"

Isn't "I don't want to" essentially what I said? And again, why don't you pay more? 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You take care of your employees you lose the high turnover rate, you increase productivity and you maintain their loyalty. AND if they have what they need outside the job, they are less likely to turn to government. Less dependency on government, more money for both the business owner and the employee.

Exactly my point. There are plenty of selfish reasons to make sure your employees are satisfied/happy with their employment. Even in our current climate hiring is expensive and a pain in the ass. Like the situation you describe with your current boss, I imagine he will run into problems with high turnover and quality control (disgruntled workers simply don't work as hard) especially when the economy improves and it becomes easier for employees to go elsewhere. That will reduce his profitability and may well lead to him losing his Audi and his houses. I have seen millionaires lose everything because they treated employees like you describe. If you really aren't happy with him being your boss, I encourage you to be one of the first employees to leave. 

 

BTW, Warren Buffet just bought a bunch more shares of BOA ($5 billion worth). Anyone care to place any bets on whether or not BOA is getting any more government money in the near future?

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well Beyond, I don't recall you ever saying what your specific business is. Even so, I don't see myself as being all that far out on a limb by suggesting that you pay your workers whatever it costs to get them to work for you.

 

If you don't mind high turnover and constant training costs, then you can probably get away with paying shit wages. If you want hard workers who tend to stay with you over the long haul, you need to do better.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:the

Beyond Saving wrote:
the keynesian economic policies we have been following through most of the 20th century

Short list, plz?

 


 



Quote:
BTW, Warren Buffet just bought a bunch more shares of BOA ($5 billion worth). Anyone care to place any bets on whether or not BOA is getting any more government money in the near future?

I'm not taking that bet, although a certain person in the executive has demonstrated that he is no longer willing to give free corporate handouts any longer. Doesn't stop the Fed from doing so.

By some figures I've recently read, BoA will need about $60-$195 billion more to stay afloat. The punchline is this practically guarantees that their bail-out will be in the 11-figure range, and like so many other fed bailouts, it will likely result in BoA imploding anyways, although I suspect their dying breath will be long and drawn-out.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well Beyond, I don't recall you ever saying what your specific business is.

Finances. He collects taxes for the... state, I think. And he'd gladly give it up if his business were no longer necessary.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well Beyond, I don't recall you ever saying what your specific business is. Even so, I don't see myself as being all that far out on a limb by suggesting that you pay your workers whatever it costs to get them to work for you.

 

If you don't mind high turnover and constant training costs, then you can probably get away with paying shit wages. If you want hard workers who tend to stay with you over the long haul, you need to do better.

 

 

Property tax appraisal, wine shop and antique shop. 

 

The property appraisal company is the only one I currently have any role in managing employees. Yeah, after years of trying to eliminate property taxes I kind of loved the irony of buying into a property tax appraisal company. If you can't beat them, join them. I think we pay fair wages ($30k-$65k + 50% of health ins), but it also is by far the most profitable venture for me.

 

The wine shop is ran by someone far more competent than me, I only own 25% so I stay out of the way unless my assistance is requested. The antique shop has no employees, it is ran by a father and son that I financed. 

 

 I just love the term "livable wage" because I don't know what that is and no one seems able to define it in a sensible way. The one definition I received so far led to a "livable wage" being so low that they are often below the legal minimum wage. So it seems pointless to bitch about all the employers out there who are not paying a livable wage when virtually all of them are. 

 

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I simply don't see the widespread poverty and abusive wages like "India and China" that Brian likes to crow about. It certainly isn't reflected in the official numbers. Even in our current recession, most Americans live more comfortably than anywhere else in the world. In the end I think it boils down to jealousy that business owners tend to make six figure+ incomes when they become successful. Never mind the years a business owner might have spent working with little to no income or even operate at a loss. They make outrageous claims about the "rich" not paying taxes that can 9 times out of 10 be demonstrated as flat out falsehoods and when true is almost always traced to a special exception in the tax code. The vast majority of us business owners don't get those special exceptions, and no politician has seriously attempted to remove them. 

 

I think people like Brian simply don't understand the sheer stress of not knowing whether or not you will get a paycheck. The huge risk that an entrepreneur takes to attempt to get a business started, with no guarantees. An employee goes to work and has the security in knowing approximately how much their paycheck will be for and approximately how much they will make over the course of a year.

 

The business owner has no guarantees and is often at the whim of the market. Many years ago I worked for a guy who owned a home contracting business. He had a good run. We did around $3 million in revenue and he probably walked home with $300-$400k per year. He bought a million dollar house, several cars, boats etc. He lived the good life- he was an idiot. Last I heard, he lost everything. He got swamped with debt and ended up declaring bankruptcy and foreclosing on his house. 

 

My point is that a business owner can show great profits and have really high incomes that people get jealous of. But there is no guarantee that those incomes will always be there. Just because you are "rich" now, doesn't mean you will be rich later. Business owners directly experience the large swings, while employees are more insulated from them. Smart business owners will have cash in reserve to keep things operating smoothly even if the business is operating at a loss so that the employees don't even notice. When a business does fail, employees can just leave and work elsewhere. The business owner has to deal with the assets, debts, contracts etc.

 

It is a big risk to start a business and the majority of businesses fail. For every failed business, there is someone who lost a bunch of money. Yet so many who don't have the guts to take that gamble look at those who took the gamble and experienced success with envy, anger and vitriol. Like somehow they are being screwed when a business owner experiences success. I don't get it. When I see someone who is experiencing honest success I get enthusiastic for them. I love nothing more than watching people achieve their dreams. When someone is successfully operating an honest business they are improving all of our lives. They should be cheered, not hated.

 

Ronnie Bryant wrote:

My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.  

 

I understand the feeling. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Beyond Saving

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
the keynesian economic policies we have been following through most of the 20th century

Short list, plz?

Short? I'll try. 

The most obvious and probably most destructive long term is the fed attempting to use interest rates as a way to control economic growth.

Countercyclical policies such as raising taxes during economic booms and increasing deficit spending during recessions.

The progressive income tax.

Social Security

Medicare

 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Kapkao

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
the keynesian economic policies we have been following through most of the 20th century

Short list, plz?

Short? I'll try. 

The most obvious and probably most destructive long term is the fed attempting to use interest rates as a way to control economic growth.

Countercyclical policies such as raising taxes during economic booms and increasing deficit spending during recessions.

The progressive income tax.

Social Security

Medicare

 

 

 

I already knew about those, though it did not occur to me that they were Keynesian. Any others?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
First thing that needs to

First thing that needs to happen is taking money out of politics. No party or individual should be allowed to use their collective $ to buy office, which is really what happens. Every candidate should be granted an equal amount of air time and funding per election, and not be permitted to use their personal finances in any way to influence an election. External parties should be banned from interfering upon punishment of the government taking everything you and your organisation have for itself, and disbanding said organisation permanently. If you aren't running, stfu, sit down, and listen. Your relevance is your vote.
Once the rich lose office for gross incompetence and illicit activity, maybe some real leaders with educations other than lawyering will start running for office.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well Keynesian economics is fairly complicated but it is the idea that the government has a role in fiddling with the economy in order to manage it. Once in a while, the government will manage to do something useful but more often, they are making decisions based on theory and hope that what they do will work.

 

The problem being that they are not basing what they come up with on the information that everyone else is basing their decisions on. The market in general is complicated and fickle. An uprising in western Africa can cause a temporary spike in oil prices. Not because they provide all that much oil but because they might have pipelines running through the area. Then the feds release stored oil enough to drop prices. That might work for the short term but there is only so much stored oil to release and we keep it on hand in major part to be able to bail us out should OPEC decide to increase prices.

 

Or you could consider health care. One may think that it should be easy enough to close the loop holes in various laws as has been done recently. Probably a good idea there, in fact, really a good idea but it has to be done carefully. Insurance companies don't keep all that cash in a vault somewhere. They invest it in the economy and expect a return on the deal. If you change too much too quickly, you run the risk of killing many billions of dollars of serious cash. Then lots of people end up with no job.

 

There are plenty of other examples. Regulating airlines raised prices to the point where fewer people flew places. Cash for clunkers was so short term that it actually did get people buying cars they otherwise would not have and the car companies were able to pay back the loans rather quickly. The first stimulus bill saved a bunch of banks. Ongoing stimulus packages amount to printing new cash which lowers the actual value of all the cash in existence. See Germany in the years right before WW2 to see just how incredibly dumb that can get.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think Zimbabwe is another

I think Zimbabwe is another good example. How to go from first to third world in a few short years.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:I already knew

Kapkao wrote:

I already knew about those, though it did not occur to me that they were Keynesian. Any others?

And that is kind of my point. Keynesian theories have become so mainstream that they are almost universally accepted as immutable. To even discuss changing SS, medicare or the income tax is highly controversial and the questions of whether or not the government even should be doing these things is a realm left only to the most "extreme" wings of politics. 

 

We have simply accepted that government should have an active role in the economy. Our government has taken an active role in trying to force unemployment to low levels, trying to maintain a high level of consumerism to avoid recessions and the idea that it is possible and desirable to control/limit the swings inherent in the free market business cycle. Our political argument has gone from "should the government be involved" and "should the government spend money" to how much it should be involved and what it should spend money on. The republicans pushing for a ridiculously large military, the democrats for a ridiculously large welfare state. Both of which are justified through keynesian theory while in reality, both are driving us to bankruptcy.

 

Even the tax argument, it has almost been conceded that it is necessary to tax the more successful at a higher percentage which has the practical result of taxing those sectors of the economy that are booming at a high rate (therefore slowing the boom), while reducing taxes (and often subsidizing) those areas that are in recession. It also serves the keynesian belief that demand is best driven by increasing the funds available to the lower classes. Republicans and democrats argue over the exact rates, but very few- and no President in living memory- suggest a flat fixed rate or that incomes ought not be taxed at all. 

 

We have accepted consistent inflation as inevitable and desirable, government deficits as the normal course of business and the federal reserve controlling our currency without question. I guess the real question is exactly which fiscal policies have we pursued that aren't keynesian? 

 

If you are interested in more on how keynesian theories have brought about our current welfare(ish) state I would refer you to a very good essay written by Gregory Bresiger- http://mises.org/journals/essays/bresiger.pdf 

 

Although, it is noteworthy that some economists argue that Keynes himself was not keynesian in the sense that many of the policies that his theories (or misunderstanding of his theories) are used to justify would not necessarily have been supported by the man himself. 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I think

Vastet wrote:
I think Zimbabwe is another good example. How to go from first to third world in a few short years.

 

While your point is taken you are mistaken in thinking that Zimbabwe was ever a first world nation. It more went from being a third world nation that was doing pretty ok to the verge of being a failed state.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well if you want to get

Well if you want to get technical it's only third world by location. Economics are irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.