Guess who's "leftwing"now...

Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Guess who's "leftwing"now...

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/12/fox-news-westboro-baptist-church-a-left-wing-cult/

 

Pro-life, anti gay marriage, rabidly religious.......also "left-wing".....??

 

I'm confused. So what's "right-wing" these days ? Have you guys gone so far to the right you're coming around the corner for another go ?  


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
That's comical

That's comical.

Another item that was hysterical to me, was that scene caption from the newspaper that said :" Conservative bikers showed up."

Hehe, Fox only showed the pictures of bikers that were not wearing the patches of 1% clubs and such, even though they were there and the mainstream riders that wish they could be bikers got the attention.

Truth of the matter is, there were representatives from the Outlaws, Hells Angels, Vagos and a couple of other 1% clubs present as well. However, like the old slogan from Sonny Barger goes : " When we do a good deed, no one remembers, when we do a bad deed no one forgets."

Now, to be fair, while Fox is one big giant propaganda machine that would make Joseph Goebbels proud, CNN and other left-wing stations are no better.

The newsmedia of today's world is nothing but one big entertainment machine that will do anything to rook in some viewers and entertainers.

I actually watch Fox News sometimes, when they are doing the headline reporting. CNN is ok in the early morning before work, but they have a tendency to take up quite a bit of time with sports news and silly stories like, thirteen year old kid built a motorcar out of batteries or something. While Fox has that same shit, it does not seem so inundated when they are doing headlines. Now, that being said, I generally try to avoid Fox and Friends, Hannity and Colmes, and the king of them all, Bill O' Reilly. However, I also avoid the guys on the other side like Chris Mathews, whom I can not stand either.

When it comes to news, I want headlines and what's happening, not a bunch of opinions from entertainers that call themselves journalists.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Another trick from FOX

Another trick from FOX trying to associate the Westbro church with Democrats and the "left".

But the "left" and the "right" is really a ridiculous terminology to use since on the grand scheme of the political measuring tape, both the Republicans and the Democrats are "right".

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Another trick from FOX trying to associate the Westbro church with Democrats and the "left".

But the "left" and the "right" is really a ridiculous terminology to use since on the grand scheme of the political measuring tape, both the Republicans and the Democrats are "right".

 

Are you serious? Fox is actually trying to paint WBC as "left"? They went off the deep end a long time ago, but this would be sheer desperation.

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Well I consider Fox news

 Well I consider Fox news to be pretty leftist, pot meet kettle. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Well I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well I consider Fox news to be pretty leftist, pot meet kettle. 

Perhaps compared to Mussolini...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well I consider Fox news to be pretty leftist, pot meet kettle. 

Perhaps compared to Mussolini...

Mussolini was a socialist, which is by definition leftist. Fascism is an extreme left wing ideology that rejects individual rights and promotes a strong cooperative state above all else. Since people tend to be far more cooperative when they are fighting wars against "those" people, fascism tends to be extremely militaristic and hyper-nationalist and in that particular respect Fox News does have some similarities. (Actually, without the extreme militarism and nationalism a fascist government would probably be described as socialist, economically speaking the two are virtually the same) I consider right wing to be someone who supports a small to non-existent government that does not regulate the economy, doesn't have a large standing military and has individual property rights. IOW, practically the exact opposite of fascism. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Mussolinni's Fascism

 

Quote:

To Fascism the world is not this material world which appears on the surface, in which man is an individual separated from all other men, standing by himself and subject to a natural law which instinctively impels him to lead a life of momentary and egoistic pleasure. In Fascism man is an individual who is the nation and the country. He is this by a moral law which embraces and binds together individuals and generations in an established tradition and mission, a moral law which suppresses the instinct to lead a life confined to a brief cycle of pleasure in order, instead, to replace it within the orbit of duty in a superior conception of life, free from the limits of time and space a life in which the indvidual by self-abnegation and by the sacrifice of his particular interests, even by death, realises the entirely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.

 

Quote:

As for the individual, so for the nation, so for mankind. Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (art, religion, science) and the supreme importance of education. Hence also the essential value of labour, with which man conquers nature and creates the human world (economic, political, moral, intellectual).

 

Now this next one is where fascism shares some similarities with Fox News and republicans (hence why I am no longer republican)

Quote:

This positive conception of life is evidently an ethical conception. And it comprises the whole reality as well as the human activity which domineers it. No action is to be removed from the moral sense; nothing is to be in the world that is divested of the importance which belongs to it in respect of moral aims. Life, therefore, as the Fascist conceives it, is serious, austere, religious; entirely balanced in a world sustained by the moral and responsible forces of the spirit. The Fascist disdains the "easy" life.

 

Quote:

For this reason Fascism is opposed to all the abstractions of an individualistic character based upon materialism typical of the Eighteenth Century; and it is opposed to all the Jacobin innovations and utopias. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the literature of the economists of the Seventeenth Century; it therefore spurns all the teleological conceptions of final causes through which, at a given period of history, a final systematisation of the human race would take place. Such theories only mean placing oneself outside real history and life, which is a continual ebb and flow and process of realisations.

IOW, fascism is opposed to capitalism. 

 

Quote:

 

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State, universal consciousness and will of man in his historic existence. It is opposed to the classic Liberalism which arose out of the need of reaction against absolutism, and had accomplished its mission in history when the State itself had become transformed in the popular will and consciousness.

 

Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the only true expression of the individual.

 

And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of the scarecrow invented by the individualistic Liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty. It is for the only kind of liberty that is serious -- the liberty of the State and of the individual in the State. Because, for the Fascist, all is comprised in the State and nothing spiritual or human exists -- much less has any value -- outside the State. In this respect Fascism is a totalising concept, and the Fascist State -- the unification and synthesis of every value -- interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of the people.

 

Quote:

The Fascist State, the highest and the most powerful form of personality is a force, but a spiritual one. It reassumes all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot, therefore, be limited to a simple function of order and of safeguarding, as was contended by Liberalism. It is not a simple mechanism which limits the sphere of the presumed individual liberties. It is an internal form and rule, a discipline of the entire person: it penetrates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, a central inspiration of the living human personality in the civil community, descends into the depths and settles in the heart of the man of action as well as the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist; the soul of our soul.

 

Quote:

Fascism, in short, is not only a lawgiver and the founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of the spiritual life. It aims to rebuild not the forms of human life, but its content, the man, the character, the faith. And for this end it exacts discipline and an authority which descend into and dominates the interior of the spirit without opposition. Its emblem, therefore, is the lictorian fasces, symbol of unity, of force and of justice.

Hardly a right wing ideology. Read more here.

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Hardly a

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hardly a right wing ideology. Read more here.

 

 

Heh. I guess somebody needs to tell Alessandra she's betraying her grandpappy's ideology. 

 


 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well I consider Fox news to be pretty leftist, pot meet kettle. 

Perhaps compared to Mussolini...

Mussolini was a socialist, which is by definition leftist. Fascism is an extreme left wing ideology that rejects individual rights and promotes a strong cooperative state above all else. Since people tend to be far more cooperative when they are fighting wars against "those" people, fascism tends to be extremely militaristic and hyper-nationalist and in that particular respect Fox News does have some similarities. (Actually, without the extreme militarism and nationalism a fascist government would probably be described as socialist, economically speaking the two are virtually the same) I consider right wing to be someone who supports a small to non-existent government that does not regulate the economy, doesn't have a large standing military and has individual property rights. IOW, practically the exact opposite of fascism. 

So now you're saying that as a corporatist (small government controlled by large corporations - fascism under it's proper name) yourself, you're a left winger?

The only difference between you and Benito seems to be that what he calls the State you call "Co." and "Inc." The functions you desire them to have are essentially the same.

Not sure how one can be for individual freedom and being controlled by the corporations simultaneously.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So now you're

jcgadfly wrote:

So now you're saying that as a corporatist (small government controlled by large corporations - fascism under it's proper name) yourself, you're a left winger?

The only difference between you and Benito seems to be that what he calls the State you call "Co." and "Inc." The functions you desire them to have are essentially the same.

Not sure how one can be for individual freedom and being controlled by the corporations simultaneously.

Corporations don't have militaries and police officers they use to force you to do anything (at least not until they team up with government e.g. Obamacare). There is a huge difference between a corporation that asks me to buy their product which I can choose to buy or not buy on my own free will and a government which orders me to do or not do X, or to give them $ under the ultimate threat of sending someone to my house, forcibly hauling me to a prison and locking me up with a willingness to use deadly force if I put up enough resistance.

The day Walmart sends someone to my door with a gun and demands that I give them my money or else, I will support shooting them too. If you can't tell the difference between a sales pitch and police power you are either incredibly stupid or simply being intentionally belligerent.

Please explain to me exactly how Walmart (or any other corporation) controls me (or anyone else) in the same manner that a government exercising police power does. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So now you're saying that as a corporatist (small government controlled by large corporations - fascism under it's proper name) yourself, you're a left winger?

The only difference between you and Benito seems to be that what he calls the State you call "Co." and "Inc." The functions you desire them to have are essentially the same.

Not sure how one can be for individual freedom and being controlled by the corporations simultaneously.

Corporations don't have militaries and police officers they use to force you to do anything (at least not until they team up with government e.g. Obamacare). There is a huge difference between a corporation that asks me to buy their product which I can choose to buy or not buy on my own free will and a government which orders me to do or not do X, or to give them $ under the ultimate threat of sending someone to my house, forcibly hauling me to a prison and locking me up with a willingness to use deadly force if I put up enough resistance.

The day Walmart sends someone to my door with a gun and demands that I give them my money or else, I will support shooting them too. If you can't tell the difference between a sales pitch and police power you are either incredibly stupid or simply being intentionally belligerent.

Please explain to me exactly how Walmart (or any other corporation) controls me (or anyone else) in the same manner that a government exercising police power does. 

Some corporations do have a police force - they call them "security". Others hire security firms. Depending on the situation and the corporate needs some "security forces" could be called paramilitary, having access to more sophisticated arms and armor.

I can't tell you that Wal-Mart controls you as a consumer. I could, however, tell you how they control their employees and it does have some aspects similar to police control (particularly in limiting information about unions getting to employees).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Some

jcgadfly wrote:

Some corporations do have a police force - they call them "security". Others hire security firms. Depending on the situation and the corporate needs some "security forces" could be called paramilitary, having access to more sophisticated arms and armor.

Uh huh. You are aware that at most security can detain you until the police arrive? At which point the representatives of the State (the police) determine what happens. Generally, the most they will do is remove you from their property. Any armed security (like say for a guard of some valuables or an armored truck) that are armed face the same laws regulating the use of their firearms that I have when I carry my pistol. Corporate security can't throw you in prison overnight let alone for months or years. Also, there is absolutely no situation in which an armed security guard could come onto my property without my consent. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I can't tell you that Wal-Mart controls you as a consumer. I could, however, tell you how they control their employees and it does have some aspects similar to police control (particularly in limiting information about unions getting to employees).

Simple, don't work for them. It is a voluntary contract. You create a contract to sell your labor and both sides should be required to follow the terms of the contract. Virtually all employment contracts are "at will" which means you can nullify the contract any time you want by quitting. If you don't like your employment contract, go work elsewhere. You are not forced to work there any more than I am forced to shop there. For example, you don't work at Walmart, I don't shop at Walmart. 

There is a huge difference between a contract- a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties that creates the rules their business relationship will be conducted under, and a law- which is one party (the state) imposing rules on another party regardless of their consent. Last time I checked, the recruiters for Walmart don't carry guns and force people to sign contracts- in fact I'm quite certain they spend far more time declining hopeful applicants. Your argument is as persuasive as trying to claim that consensual sex is the same as rape.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Some corporations do have a police force - they call them "security". Others hire security firms. Depending on the situation and the corporate needs some "security forces" could be called paramilitary, having access to more sophisticated arms and armor.

Uh huh. You are aware that at most security can detain you until the police arrive? At which point the representatives of the State (the police) determine what happens. Generally, the most they will do is remove you from their property. Any armed security (like say for a guard of some valuables or an armored truck) that are armed face the same laws regulating the use of their firearms that I have when I carry my pistol. Corporate security can't throw you in prison overnight let alone for months or years. Also, there is absolutely no situation in which an armed security guard could come onto my property without my consent. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I can't tell you that Wal-Mart controls you as a consumer. I could, however, tell you how they control their employees and it does have some aspects similar to police control (particularly in limiting information about unions getting to employees).

Simple, don't work for them. It is a voluntary contract. You create a contract to sell your labor and both sides should be required to follow the terms of the contract. Virtually all employment contracts are "at will" which means you can nullify the contract any time you want by quitting. If you don't like your employment contract, go work elsewhere. You are not forced to work there any more than I am forced to shop there. For example, you don't work at Walmart, I don't shop at Walmart. 

There is a huge difference between a contract- a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties that creates the rules their business relationship will be conducted under, and a law- which is one party (the state) imposing rules on another party regardless of their consent. Last time I checked, the recruiters for Walmart don't carry guns and force people to sign contracts- in fact I'm quite certain they spend far more time declining hopeful applicants. Your argument is as persuasive as trying to claim that consensual sex is the same as rape.  

And are you aware that armed security can "only detain"  you with lethal force if needed? They're not Barney Fife - they are allowed more than one bullet. Or do you believe that all security guards are unarmed?

As for the "they can work somewhere else" idea (quote cavalier of you really) because there are so many jobs being created out there - are you hiring? I tire of hearing about the so called "job creators" who suddenly go away when it comes to actually creating jobs?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And are you

jcgadfly wrote:

And are you aware that armed security can "only detain"  you with lethal force if needed? They're not Barney Fife - they are allowed more than one bullet. Or do you believe that all security guards are unarmed?

If a security guard uses lethal force they face the same process I would face if I used my gun. I already said that if you read my entire post. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for the "they can work somewhere else" idea (quote cavalier of you really) because there are so many jobs being created out there - are you hiring? I tire of hearing about the so called "job creators" who suddenly go away when it comes to actually creating jobs?

I quit my job last year just so that someone else could do it. I should say that is rather generous of me since it led to me having a rather poor year financially. But, no I am not hiring, I hate hiring, I hate the paperwork and the legal shit that goes along with it, and I hate managing whiny employees so I try to avoid it until I can shovel that crap onto someone else's plate. I don't see what relevance that has to the conversation though.

If you can't find a job you like, create your own. Funny thing about economics, when you provide people with something that they want, where they want and when they want- they give you money. If you want money, provide people with things or services they want. Then you too can be a job creator. Or you can settle for whatever contract someone else is willing to give you in exchange for your labor. It is your choice. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And are you aware that armed security can "only detain"  you with lethal force if needed? They're not Barney Fife - they are allowed more than one bullet. Or do you believe that all security guards are unarmed?

If a security guard uses lethal force they face the same process I would face if I used my gun. I already said that if you read my entire post. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for the "they can work somewhere else" idea (quote cavalier of you really) because there are so many jobs being created out there - are you hiring? I tire of hearing about the so called "job creators" who suddenly go away when it comes to actually creating jobs?

I quit my job last year just so that someone else could do it. I should say that is rather generous of me since it led to me having a rather poor year financially. But, no I am not hiring, I hate hiring, I hate the paperwork and the legal shit that goes along with it, and I hate managing whiny employees so I try to avoid it until I can shovel that crap onto someone else's plate. I don't see what relevance that has to the conversation though.

If you can't find a job you like, create your own. Funny thing about economics, when you provide people with something that they want, where they want and when they want- they give you money. If you want money, provide people with things or services they want. Then you too can be a job creator. Or you can settle for whatever contract someone else is willing to give you in exchange for your labor. It is your choice. 

Gotcha -you're not hiring and you blame the government. You also got into your own business because you had a moneyed relation who didn't ask for a lot of a return on his investment (and was likely willing to bail you out if you needed it).

You do realize that you're the exception and not the rule, yes? Not many have your easy access to start up capital.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:There is

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a huge difference between a contract- a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties that creates the rules their business relationship will be conducted under, and a law- which is one party (the state) imposing rules on another party regardless of their consent. Last time I checked, the recruiters for Walmart don't carry guns and force people to sign contracts- in fact I'm quite certain they spend far more time declining hopeful applicants. Your argument is as persuasive as trying to claim that consensual sex is the same as rape.  

 

You have complained of this before, BS.  The corporations are influencing (buying off) the lawmakers - which means the laws deliberately give advantage to the corporations over small business, the employees, the taxpayers, and you and I.  All in the name of good business, of course.  We can't have those nasty employees taking advantage of their employers, or the small businesses having an equal advantage to the big boys, can we?  </sarcasm>

So the laws (as imposed by the state) are actually worded to give advantage to the large corporations - the ones that contribute millions to the lawmakers.  Regardless of my consent or desires.  Personally, I would rather the laws were written to advantage small business over the large corporations.  But it isn't going to happen as long as huge campaign contributions are allowed and corporations have freedom of speech because they are people too, don't you know.

And I do NOT see how this would change if we went to a libertarian or anarchist government - nor will any government reduce this disparity without very restrictive laws for international corporations.  If the Soviet Union taught us anything, it should have taught us that some people in any society will go for power over others - regardless of who they stomp on.  Less government means more stomping - and if you are not some multi-billionaire, you will be a stompee, not a stomper. 

I'm too freaking cynical to be a libertarian.

 

-- 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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Gotcha

jcgadfly wrote:

Gotcha -you're not hiring and you blame the government.

I didn't blame the government, I said I didn't want to deal with the crap because I don't enjoy it. I certainly could hire if I wanted to, we aren't that socialist yet. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You also got into your own business because you had a moneyed relation who didn't ask for a lot of a return on his investment (and was likely willing to bail you out if you needed it).

Really? That is news to me. Could you tell me who this moneyed relation was and where the hell this person lives? The only business ties I have had with anyone in my family was when my father fronted me a few bucks (around $20 i think) to buy candy for resale when I was in elementary school. The greedy prick even charged me interest. Wow, glad I had that HUGE advantage. I used my brother as an independent contractor for a lawn business in my teens, then I sold my failing web design business to my sister for a few bucks who went on to make a decent living off of it after doing much better with it than I ever could have. Other than that, I have always avoided being in business with people related to me.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You do realize that you're the exception and not the rule, yes? Not many have your easy access to start up capital.

Easy? Really, get the fuck over yourself you don't know shit. I saved up my start up capital doing a very regular job, making a very regular wage. But I have already described how I went broke and busted my ass to scrape up a few thousand to invest in a new venture... went broke again, worked another regular job, invested in a venture. I don't know where you got the idea I somehow had a silver spoon. And I assure you I would live homeless on the streets before I ever went back to live with my father, there is a reason I live 1000 miles away from them and only see them once a year.

Anyway, I don't see why my personal story has any relevance to the discussion whatsoever or is any of your business. Are you saying it is impossible for you to save up say $10,000 in a few years? (more than enough to start a small one person business, I can point to many people who started with less- starting a business means eating ramen noodles every meal, driving an old beat up car, living in the ghetto (or office) and not going out drinking with friends) That you literally have NO choice whatsoever and will for the rest of your life have to work for Walmart because they are they only company around that will hire you? Bullshit. It is simply a question of which you prefer and which you are willing to put the effort into achieving.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a huge difference between a contract- a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties that creates the rules their business relationship will be conducted under, and a law- which is one party (the state) imposing rules on another party regardless of their consent. Last time I checked, the recruiters for Walmart don't carry guns and force people to sign contracts- in fact I'm quite certain they spend far more time declining hopeful applicants. Your argument is as persuasive as trying to claim that consensual sex is the same as rape.  

 

You have complained of this before, BS.  The corporations are influencing (buying off) the lawmakers - which means the laws deliberately give advantage to the corporations over small business, the employees, the taxpayers, and you and I.  All in the name of good business, of course.  We can't have those nasty employees taking advantage of their employers, or the small businesses having an equal advantage to the big boys, can we?  </sarcasm>

So the laws (as imposed by the state) are actually worded to give advantage to the large corporations - the ones that contribute millions to the lawmakers.  Regardless of my consent or desires.  Personally, I would rather the laws were written to advantage small business over the large corporations.  But it isn't going to happen as long as huge campaign contributions are allowed and corporations have freedom of speech because they are people too, don't you know.

And I do NOT see how this would change if we went to a libertarian or anarchist government - nor will any government reduce this disparity without very restrictive laws for international corporations.  If the Soviet Union taught us anything, it should have taught us that some people in any society will go for power over others - regardless of who they stomp on.  Less government means more stomping - and if you are not some multi-billionaire, you will be a stompee, not a stomper. 

I'm too freaking cynical to be a libertarian.

 

At the beginning of your post you point out how large corporations use regulations to stomp-I agree, so how do you come to the conclusion that less government means more stomping? How can a corporation stomp you without using government? Just using contracts and money in a free market, explain how and if you can find a real life example that would be fantastic.

Especially if you can find anything that would support JC's absurd argument that a free market is even remotely similar to fascism. Although given that he has decided to talk about me instead I assume he has given up on that point.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gotcha -you're not hiring and you blame the government.

I didn't blame the government, I said I didn't want to deal with the crap because I don't enjoy it. I certainly could hire if I wanted to, we aren't that socialist yet. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You also got into your own business because you had a moneyed relation who didn't ask for a lot of a return on his investment (and was likely willing to bail you out if you needed it).

Really? That is news to me. Could you tell me who this moneyed relation was and where the hell this person lives? The only business ties I have had with anyone in my family was when my father fronted me a few bucks (around $20 i think) to buy candy for resale when I was in elementary school. The greedy prick even charged me interest. Wow, glad I had that HUGE advantage. I used my brother as an independent contractor for a lawn business in my teens, then I sold my failing web design business to my sister for a few bucks who went on to make a decent living off of it after doing much better with it than I ever could have. Other than that, I have always avoided being in business with people related to me.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You do realize that you're the exception and not the rule, yes? Not many have your easy access to start up capital.

Easy? Really, get the fuck over yourself you don't know shit. I saved up my start up capital doing a very regular job, making a very regular wage. But I have already described how I went broke and busted my ass to scrape up a few thousand to invest in a new venture... went broke again, worked another regular job, invested in a venture. I don't know where you got the idea I somehow had a silver spoon. And I assure you I would live homeless on the streets before I ever went back to live with my father, there is a reason I live 1000 miles away from them and only see them once a year.

Anyway, I don't see why my personal story has any relevance to the discussion whatsoever or is any of your business. Are you saying it is impossible for you to save up say $10,000 in a few years? (more than enough to start a small one person business, I can point to many people who started with less- starting a business means eating ramen noodles every meal, driving an old beat up car, living in the ghetto (or office) and not going out drinking with friends) That you literally have NO choice whatsoever and will for the rest of your life have to work for Walmart because they are they only company around that will hire you? Bullshit. It is simply a question of which you prefer and which you are willing to put the effort into achieving.  

Your personal story doesn't. Your claim that everyone can just quit their job, start a business and  magically be rolling in capital is what I have a problem with. Especially since your personal story is contrary to what you claim.

If it isn't as easy as you claim it is stop claiming that everyone can "just do it". That's full of crap and you know it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Your personal

jcgadfly wrote:

Your personal story doesn't. Your claim that everyone can just quit their job, start a business and  magically be rolling in capital is what I have a problem with. Especially since your personal story is contrary to what you claim.

If it isn't as easy as you claim it is stop claiming that everyone can "just do it". That's full of crap and you know it.

I've never claimed it would be easy or fun. Sometimes life is neither, we don't live in Never Never Land. But yeah, if it is what you want "just do it". Being an employee is significantly easier, significantly less stressful and significantly more stable. So it is your choice whether you want to take on the difficulty, stress and risk it takes to work for yourself. If you decide to lay that onto someone else and have them create a job for you then you have to put up with all the bullshit that can exist as an employee. Each choice has its own benefits and drawbacks. Just don't pretend that someone has a gun to your head and making you choose one way or the other. In a fascist state, someone does have a gun to your head, you do what you are told or you are punished- which was my point from the beginning.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a huge difference between a contract- a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties that creates the rules their business relationship will be conducted under, and a law- which is one party (the state) imposing rules on another party regardless of their consent. Last time I checked, the recruiters for Walmart don't carry guns and force people to sign contracts- in fact I'm quite certain they spend far more time declining hopeful applicants. Your argument is as persuasive as trying to claim that consensual sex is the same as rape.  

 

You have complained of this before, BS.  The corporations are influencing (buying off) the lawmakers - which means the laws deliberately give advantage to the corporations over small business, the employees, the taxpayers, and you and I.  All in the name of good business, of course.  We can't have those nasty employees taking advantage of their employers, or the small businesses having an equal advantage to the big boys, can we?  </sarcasm>

So the laws (as imposed by the state) are actually worded to give advantage to the large corporations - the ones that contribute millions to the lawmakers.  Regardless of my consent or desires.  Personally, I would rather the laws were written to advantage small business over the large corporations.  But it isn't going to happen as long as huge campaign contributions are allowed and corporations have freedom of speech because they are people too, don't you know.

And I do NOT see how this would change if we went to a libertarian or anarchist government - nor will any government reduce this disparity without very restrictive laws for international corporations.  If the Soviet Union taught us anything, it should have taught us that some people in any society will go for power over others - regardless of who they stomp on.  Less government means more stomping - and if you are not some multi-billionaire, you will be a stompee, not a stomper. 

I'm too freaking cynical to be a libertarian.

 

At the beginning of your post you point out how large corporations use regulations to stomp-I agree, so how do you come to the conclusion that less government means more stomping? How can a corporation stomp you without using government? Just using contracts and money in a free market, explain how and if you can find a real life example that would be fantastic.

Especially if you can find anything that would support JC's absurd argument that a free market is even remotely similar to fascism. Although given that he has decided to talk about me instead I assume he has given up on that point.

I never made that argument so she need not support it and I felt no need to discus it. Cool strawman though - have fun knocking it down.  What you call a "free market" is corporate control over the things that government currently does (you guys call it privitization - it still leaves it in corporate control.). You simply replace "the State" with "the company".

I talked about you because you like to bring yourself up as a success story that anyone can do. You just keep leaving out the "... if they have..." part.

At this point, I'm done. Your view makes no sense to me and you won't understand what I'm saying. It's been fun though.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Your personal story doesn't. Your claim that everyone can just quit their job, start a business and  magically be rolling in capital is what I have a problem with. Especially since your personal story is contrary to what you claim.

If it isn't as easy as you claim it is stop claiming that everyone can "just do it". That's full of crap and you know it.

I've never claimed it would be easy or fun. Sometimes life is neither, we don't live in Never Never Land. But yeah, if it is what you want "just do it". Being an employee is significantly easier, significantly less stressful and significantly more stable. So it is your choice whether you want to take on the difficulty, stress and risk it takes to work for yourself. If you decide to lay that onto someone else and have them create a job for you then you have to put up with all the bullshit that can exist as an employee. Each choice has its own benefits and drawbacks. Just don't pretend that someone has a gun to your head and making you choose one way or the other. In a fascist state, someone does have a gun to your head, you do what you are told or you are punished- which was my point from the beginning.  

And now that I've finally gotten you to admit a couple of times that starting a business isn't as rosy as you insisted on making it out to be earlier I can agree with you on parts of this. 

The only difference I can see between fascism and what you call a libertarian free market are:

1. In fascism, the state holds a literal firearm. In what you and other libertarians call a free market,  large corporations hold an economic one.

2. Both views have "do what you're told our you're punished". Fascism would take life and freedom - the so called libertarian free market would take livelihood.

From what I can see, the only way we can have a truly free market is to get rid of large corporations entirely (at the very least break them up and allow for new competition) . But in the view of American libertarianism such an idea would be "punishing success" and would be a non-starter. Is your view different? I confess to having a hard time seeing it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well I consider Fox news to be pretty leftist, pot meet kettle. 

Perhaps compared to Mussolini...

Mussolini was a socialist, which is by definition leftist. Fascism is an extreme left wing ideology that rejects individual rights and promotes a strong cooperative state above all else. Since people tend to be far more cooperative when they are fighting wars against "those" people, fascism tends to be extremely militaristic and hyper-nationalist and in that particular respect Fox News does have some similarities. (Actually, without the extreme militarism and nationalism a fascist government would probably be described as socialist, economically speaking the two are virtually the same) I consider right wing to be someone who supports a small to non-existent government that does not regulate the economy, doesn't have a large standing military and has individual property rights. IOW, practically the exact opposite of fascism. 

 

Yet while having "SOCIAL SECURITY" and a social military WE pay for, and socialized police and fire and post office and public schools. DAMNED SOCIALISM!

Do not confuse what us "leftists" want and promote as being the same as those assholes promoted. All governments are forms of social contracts, the only difference is that those assholes monopolized it. The "lefties" like me in the west don't want monopolies or dictators.

I'd say if there is any type of growing monopoly in America it is the corporate monopoly people like you feed into because you falsely think the big boys in business wouldn't let you go down in flames with the rest of us, because you are a business owner yourself.

Quote:
I consider right wing to be someone who supports a small to non-existent government that does not regulate the economy, doesn't have a large standing military and has individual property rights. IOW, practically the exact opposite of fascism.

"Non existent government"  would be Somalia . Go live there if you don't want government in your life.  THE CORRUPTION we have is due to the wall street and big banks and big business paying lobiests to get lawmakers to write laws that allow them to continue this race to the bottom.

This is just a scare tactic on your part because you cant stand that people who don't think like you also have the right to vote.

 

 

 

"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: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Your personal story doesn't. Your claim that everyone can just quit their job, start a business and  magically be rolling in capital is what I have a problem with. Especially since your personal story is contrary to what you claim.

If it isn't as easy as you claim it is stop claiming that everyone can "just do it". That's full of crap and you know it.

I've never claimed it would be easy or fun. Sometimes life is neither, we don't live in Never Never Land. But yeah, if it is what you want "just do it". Being an employee is significantly easier, significantly less stressful and significantly more stable. So it is your choice whether you want to take on the difficulty, stress and risk it takes to work for yourself. If you decide to lay that onto someone else and have them create a job for you then you have to put up with all the bullshit that can exist as an employee. Each choice has its own benefits and drawbacks. Just don't pretend that someone has a gun to your head and making you choose one way or the other. In a fascist state, someone does have a gun to your head, you do what you are told or you are punished- which was my point from the beginning.  

And now that I've finally gotten you to admit a couple of times that starting a business isn't as rosy as you insisted on making it out to be earlier I can agree with you on parts of this. 

The only difference I can see between fascism and what you call a libertarian free market are:

1. In fascism, the state holds a literal firearm. In what you and other libertarians call a free market,  large corporations hold an economic one.

2. Both views have "do what you're told our you're punished". Fascism would take life and freedom - the so called libertarian free market would take livelihood.

From what I can see, the only way we can have a truly free market is to get rid of large corporations entirely (at the very least break them up and allow for new competition) . But in the view of American libertarianism such an idea would be "punishing success" and would be a non-starter. Is your view different? I confess to having a hard time seeing it.

BINGO! Our pay gap and lack of affordable living is due to the big boys pumping in so much money into politics they are creating a class monopoly. Their goal is to copy the same indentured sweat shop slave wages as China and India. It makes great money for the CEOs and shareholders, but it sucks for the workers in the middle class and working poor.

Beyond has a narrow view of what constitutes "Capitalism", which is NOT a form of government. It merely means to make money, and fascists need money to maintain their monopolies. Gadaffi was a billionaire and I am quite sure if he had no money he wouldn't have gained his monopoly and maintained it for 40 years.

Our Constitution is an anti trust anti monopoly concept. It is supposed to allow for citizens to counter any lopsided power. He stupidly thinks business cant go off the rails, but has as demonstrated by our great recession we are barely crawling out of.

And his concept of "smaller government" cannot work right now because the climate is not conducive in the business world to allow it, it would be throwing more gas on the fire. If he wants smaller government then the big guys and small guys in business need to do what Nick Hanour A BILLIONAIRE said, give more directly in pay, in community investment and health care, so that those who work for them wont need so much help. Once you do that, there will be less need for taxes because the middle man will be cut out more.

Direct investment, higher pay, cheaper education, lower health care costs, less pay gap. That will get him the "less government he wants. But until a majority of all sized business owners in this country understand that, that wont happen.

 

"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
Beyond Saving wrote: At the

Beyond Saving wrote:

At the beginning of your post you point out how large corporations use regulations to stomp-I agree, so how do you come to the conclusion that less government means more stomping? How can a corporation stomp you without using government? Just using contracts and money in a free market, explain how and if you can find a real life example that would be fantastic.

Especially if you can find anything that would support JC's absurd argument that a free market is even remotely similar to fascism. Although given that he has decided to talk about me instead I assume he has given up on that point.

 

Adam Smith - from Wiki

Quote:

Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[82]

 

 

Sound familiar?  I happen to agree with Mr. Smith.

 

Quote:

Moreover, in this passage Smith goes on to specify that progressive, not flat, taxation would be tolerable:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."[122]

Smith even specifically named taxes that he thought should be required by the state among them luxury goods taxes and tax on rent. He believed that tax laws should be as transparent as possible and that each individual should pay a "certain amount, and not arbitrary," in addition to paying this tax at the time "most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it".[121] Smith goes on to state that:

"Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."[123]

Additionally, Smith outlined the proper expenses of the government in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I. Included in his requirements of a government is to enforce contracts and provide justice system, grant patents and copy rights, provide public goods such as infrastructure, provide national defense and regulate banking. It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours. He also encouraged invention and new ideas through his patent enforcement and support of infant industry monopolies. he supported public education and religious institutions as providing general benefit to the society. Finally he outlined how the government should support the dignity of the monarch or chief magistrate, such that they are equal or above the public in fashion. He even states that monarchs should be provided for in a greater fashion than magistrates of a republic because "we naturally expect more splendor in the court of a king than in the mansion-house of a doge."[124] In addition, he was in favor of retaliatory tariffs and believed that they would eventually bring down the price of goods. He even stated in Wealth of Nations:

"The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods."[125]

 

Quote:

The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which it is supposed they will consent to give; the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.[72]:56

– Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations

 

Quote:

Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management.[72]:127

– Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations

 

 

 

-- 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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The only

jcgadfly wrote:

The only difference I can see between fascism and what you call a libertarian free market are:

1. In fascism, the state holds a literal firearm. In what you and other libertarians call a free market,  large corporations hold an economic one.

Exactly my question, how can you equivocate physical force and economic force? That is like equivocating a beating with a pat on the head. Suppose for some crazy ass reason I wanted you to do the chicken dance for my amusement. Now you have two choices, I could use physical force- point a gun at you, smack you around a bit, or throw you in a jail cell until you decide to dance and chances are you probably will.

Or I could use economic "force", I say JC I will pay you $1 to do the chicken dance- you laugh and tell me to fuck off- I say $10, you decline, I say $100- you consider for a moment then decline, $1000- you would probably do it but lets say you REALLY hate doing the chicken dance. $10,000.... and I go on until I find some price you are willing to do it at, or until I don't have enough money to back up my offer.

Are these to scenarios comparable? In my mind, one is clearly preferable to the other. Is there some other way I can use my economic force to get what I want? 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Both views have "do what you're told our you're punished". Fascism would take life and freedom - the so called libertarian free market would take livelihood.

How can I punish you with money?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  Adam Smith -

cj wrote:

 

Adam Smith - from Wiki

Quote:

Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[82]

 

 

Sound familiar?  I happen to agree with Mr. Smith.

I agree with this part of his writings as well, yet when I oppose regulations (99.9% of which are written by the very same types of organizations he warns about) I am accused of being in the pocket of "big business". We have a political system which is dominated by business and I oppose it. Why aren't you opposing it with me?

 

 

Quote:

The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which it is supposed they will consent to give; the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.[72]:56

– Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations

 

Quote:

Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management.[72]:127

– Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations

 

At the time of Smith's writings every monopoly in existence was a coercive monopoly which was granted monopoly status by the government and used government police power to support it. It would be almost 100 years after his death when the first monopolies managed to be established using purely economic means. I believe Smith's observations of monopolies are mostly accurate when applied to coercive monopolies, however they are not accurate when it comes to non-coercive monopolies (usually called an efficiency monopoly). The reason being is that an efficiency monopoly is not a true monopoly because it is not protected from competition and as soon as it fails to be more efficient than the smaller companies it will lose market share.    

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Yet while

Brian37 wrote:
 

Yet while having "SOCIAL SECURITY" and a social military WE pay for, and socialized police and fire and post office and public schools. DAMNED SOCIALISM!

All of which are policies which can be defined as leaning left. An extreme right winger would oppose all of them. There are people who are to the right of me (just not very many).

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Do not confuse what us "leftists" want and promote as being the same as those assholes promoted. All governments are forms of social contracts, the only difference is that those assholes monopolized it. The "lefties" like me in the west don't want monopolies or dictators.

I never did, which is why I used the qualifier "extreme" to describe Mussolini.

 

Brian37 wrote:

"Non existent government"  would be Somalia . Go live there if you don't want government in your life. 

Until recently Somalia had two governments, hence the civil war, and they hardly follow anything similar to libertarian principles. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

THE CORRUPTION we have is due to the wall street and big banks and big business paying lobiests to get lawmakers to write laws that allow them to continue this race to the bottom.

I agree, which is why I oppose those laws. Why do you support them? How can you criticize me for somehow being in the pocket of big corporations for opposing regulation while in the same post arguing that those same corporations write all the regulations I oppose? How can I be on their side while simultaneously opposing every law they create? You are the one who is in the pocket of big corporations under the false belief that they are going to give you free shit out of benevolence.   

 

Brian37 wrote:

This is just a scare tactic on your part because you cant stand that people who don't think like you also have the right to vote.

No, I was simply pointing out that JC's characterization of Mussolini as someone who held right wing beliefs similar to Fox News was factually inaccurate. I saw a factual inaccuracy so I corrected it and provided quotes from Mussolini's manifesto to back it up. I made no argument or insinuation that all leftists or even all socialists would agree with Mussolini's aggression. You will find violent and aggressive people across the political spectrum, I think that is so blindingly obvious it can go without saying, but if not you can read my current sig because that is basically what it says. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
WBC is old news. There's a

WBC is old news. There's a new "leftwing" conspiracy going on :

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/eric-bolling-schools-pushing-the-liberal-agenda-by-teaching-algebra/ 

 

Next : Broccoli, spawn of satan.