Capitalism: A Love Story

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.

62

Not at all, I simply decline to waste my time in that particular fashion. Why are you so defensive all the time?

63

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I don’t vote.

[/quote]

and this admission from the great “voice of the people” and “worker’s revolution” socialist . . . . can’t even get up the passion to participate enough to try to change over to the system he adores . . . maybe he’s waiting on a violent revolution instead . . .[/quote]

See? This is what I was saying. You don’t know the first thing about socialism. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the truth. Of course there will have to be a revolution if socialism is to be implemented. Do you honestly think that, even if enough people in this country would vote for it, it would ever be allowed to be implemented? This country didn’t even allow Al Gore to be president, to say nothing of socialism.

64

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

Not if you think about it even a little bit. Yes, your hypothesis requires a massive conspiracy. But look at this situation: government elites are in a position to gain personally from their positions. This requires business to do well, since that is where the money comes from, which is why you’ll see the government siding with business over the people over and over again throughout American history. The very simple fact that they look out for their own interests is enough to shape the system in this way.

Do not accuse me of being inconsistent when you offer up these childish explanations.

65

[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]

this!

hahaha!

66

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
I don’t know if i’d say moore is tortously manipulative. It is obviously a one sided story as are most documentaries. Although personally I’d never been a fan of the whole capitalism ideal, mind you it’s not really capitalism either when you bail out companies. I guess I’ve just always been of the “how many fucking cars do you need” mentality. [/quote]

The first thing you need to realize is that capitalism is not about need. I only need 1 car but if I’m talented, skilled, motivated, driven and ambitious enough to earn enough money to buy 5 cars, why shouldn’t I? [/quote]

Never realized this got moved, thought it just died off.

Because I would rate the well being of a fellow man over owning a few extra unneeded cars…which really server no purpose then to say “hey im better then you”. That’s just me though.

67

[quote]Rookie21 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
I don’t know if i’d say moore is tortously manipulative. It is obviously a one sided story as are most documentaries. Although personally I’d never been a fan of the whole capitalism ideal, mind you it’s not really capitalism either when you bail out companies. I guess I’ve just always been of the “how many fucking cars do you need” mentality. [/quote]

The first thing you need to realize is that capitalism is not about need. I only need 1 car but if I’m talented, skilled, motivated, driven and ambitious enough to earn enough money to buy 5 cars, why shouldn’t I? [/quote]

Never realized this got moved, thought it just died off.

Because I would rate the well being of a fellow man over owning a few extra unneeded cars…which really server no purpose then to say “hey im better then you”. That’s just me though.[/quote]

…it serves that man’s well being. Aren’t you concerned with that?

68

Problem is, many can’t afford the shiny stuff they keep buying. Witness debt levels. Oh, and of course, various entitlement programs that cover circumstances people should’ve been saving for on their own. Thrift seems to be a fading virtue.

Edit: It’s funny when people defend opulent lifestyles vs. generous charitable giving. They’re usually the same folks who’d claim charity would cover the hole left by a rescinded entitlement state.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Not at all, I simply decline to waste my time in that particular fashion. Why are you so defensive all the time?[/quote]

It’s not a defensive reaction, but rather my annoyance with your elitist, “I’m much smarter than the common sheep” attitude.

70

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.[/quote]

I agree with this, and so did the founding fathers of these United States. This is exactly why we the people have the power to vote the bums out when they fail to serve. I see politicians get voted out all the time.

71

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

Not if you think about it even a little bit. Yes, your hypothesis requires a massive conspiracy. But look at this situation: government elites are in a position to gain personally from their positions. This requires business to do well, since that is where the money comes from, which is why you’ll see the government siding with business over the people over and over again throughout American history. The very simple fact that they look out for their own interests is enough to shape the system in this way.

Do not accuse me of being inconsistent when you offer up these childish explanations.[/quote]

Childish? I think not. My position is that we the people have the power to vote the bums out in force when they (the politicians) stop serving us, and start working against us. Your position is that the political powers that be are so entrenched, that no amount of voting will change anything. This requires a massive effort to always ensure that only candidates who are puppets for the pols are elected. This of of course would entail some secret society of political elites who are really controlling things from behind the scenes.

Lets play a game called, “which one of these scenarios sounds more like conspiracy?”. you go first…

72

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It is because free market solutions will not bring down the cost of health care. Over and over again, it has been demonstrated that single-payer health care systems are the most efficient and produce the best results. It is because they wish to simultaneously preserve our economic system and help people get quality medical care, coupled with the fact that they are not totally blinded by ideology.[/quote]

Ryan, because I care, here are some free market solutions for you to chew on:

http://freemarkethealthcare.net/viewplan.aspx

http://terry.ipearson.net/2009/08/18/what-free-market-solutions-exist-for-health-care/

You really need to watch the vids in this link, very very good:
http://socialismdoesntwork.com/free-market-solutions-in-health-care-youtube-videos/

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I won’t argue with you, but don’t be surprised when you continue to be mystified by economics and politics.[/quote]

Don’t confuse my desire to hold a deeper understanding of economics and the socialist ideology with being “mystified by economics”. LOL

73

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.[/quote]

I agree with this, and so did the founding fathers of these United States. This is exactly why we the people have the power to vote the bums out when they fail to serve. I see politicians get voted out all the time.
[/quote]

And how does that work for you?

74

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.[/quote]

I agree with this, and so did the founding fathers of these United States. This is exactly why we the people have the power to vote the bums out when they fail to serve. I see politicians get voted out all the time.
[/quote]

And how does that work for you?
[/quote]

Fairly well for the most part, thanks.

75

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.[/quote]

I agree with this, and so did the founding fathers of these United States. This is exactly why we the people have the power to vote the bums out when they fail to serve. I see politicians get voted out all the time.
[/quote]

And how does that work for you?
[/quote]

Fairly well for the most part, thanks.
[/quote]

So the question begs to be asked, do you believe in the secret society?

76

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”

Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]

You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory but with the rather banal observation that political power tends to entrench itself.[/quote]

I agree with this, and so did the founding fathers of these United States. This is exactly why we the people have the power to vote the bums out when they fail to serve. I see politicians get voted out all the time.
[/quote]

And how does that work for you?
[/quote]

Fairly well for the most part, thanks.
[/quote]

So the question begs to be asked, do you believe in the secret society?[/quote]

And the answer is I dont know.

I do know however that you voting every four years means nothing when unions and lobbyists are scheming 24/7, 4 weeks a month, 12 months a year.

The dolts you send to Washington and replace every now and then are completely replacable, they are diversions, nothing more, nothing less.

77

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Not at all, I simply decline to waste my time in that particular fashion. Why are you so defensive all the time?[/quote]

It’s not a defensive reaction, but rather my annoyance with your elitist, “I’m much smarter than the common sheep” attitude.
[/quote]

I’ll try to use more slang then, or something.

78

[quote]bigflamer wrote:Childish? I think not. My position is that we the people have the power to vote the bums out in force when they (the politicians) stop serving us, and start working against us. Your position is that the political powers that be are so entrenched, that no amount of voting will change anything. This requires a massive effort to always ensure that only candidates who are puppets for the pols are elected. This of of course would entail some secret society of political elites who are really controlling things from behind the scenes.

Lets play a game called, “which one of these scenarios sounds more like conspiracy?”. you go first…
[/quote]

Not at all. I simply observe that the system is very plainly designed to exclude other parties. Do you really think that our political system is so extremely narrow by accident? It is nearly impossible for a third party to get any financial support, and this is intentional. Yes, you can vote them out, but when the next guy down the pipe is exactly the same as the previous one, it does nothing in reality other than make you feel a little better.

Whereas you, by maintaining the superiority of the free market, require that there is a massive conspiracy to subvert it, despite its obvious advantages.

79

[quote]bigflamer wrote:Don’t confuse my desire to hold a deeper understanding of economics and the socialist ideology with being “mystified by economics”. LOL
[/quote]

But that’s just it–you don’t have any desire for a deeper understanding of economics. Because you clearly know nothing about it, yet you’re utterly convinced of the free market’s superiority (despite the fact that the free market position has been utterly refuted over and over again). This is otherwise known as prejudice. You simply look for material that reinforces what you already believe. That’s why you pitch such a fit when someone brings up a fact you don’t like.

“If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; But if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.”

That is why right-wing “solutions” are so popular–they have a veneer of truth, and they make you think you’re intelligent. And that’s why you’re so offended by me–I actually make you think.

80

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:Don’t confuse my desire to hold a deeper understanding of economics and the socialist ideology with being “mystified by economics”. LOL
[/quote]

But that’s just it–you don’t have any desire for a deeper understanding of economics. Because you clearly know nothing about it, yet you’re utterly convinced of the free market’s superiority (despite the fact that the free market position has been utterly refuted over and over again). This is otherwise known as prejudice. You simply look for material that reinforces what you already believe. That’s why you pitch such a fit when someone brings up a fact you don’t like.

[/quote]