[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes lobbyists have no power, why, because they aren’t elected? You need to get a hold of the hundreds of corporations to tell them to stop sending so many lobbyists to Washington since they have no power but I"m afraid they would laugh you off the phone. Corporations love people with your mentality because they can continue to rig the system in their favor while folks like you point at the government. You have bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
[/quote]
If I believed in evolution, I would have a hard time explaining you.[/quote]
Again no refutation just a personal attack because you have nothing.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes lobbyists have no power, why, because they aren’t elected? You need to get a hold of the hundreds of corporations to tell them to stop sending so many lobbyists to Washington since they have no power but I"m afraid they would laugh you off the phone. Corporations love people with your mentality because they can continue to rig the system in their favor while folks like you point at the government. You have bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
[/quote]
If I believed in evolution, I would have a hard time explaining you.[/quote]
Again no refutation just a personal attack because you have nothing.[/quote]
Do you blame David Berkowitz’s neighbor’s dog for his killings, too? I assume so, since that’s pretty much what you do when you blame lobbyists for government actions.
This is pretty much my position on lobbyists.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes lobbyists have no power, why, because they aren’t elected? You need to get a hold of the hundreds of corporations to tell them to stop sending so many lobbyists to Washington since they have no power but I"m afraid they would laugh you off the phone. Corporations love people with your mentality because they can continue to rig the system in their favor while folks like you point at the government. You have bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
[/quote]
If I believed in evolution, I would have a hard time explaining you.[/quote]
Again no refutation just a personal attack because you have nothing.[/quote]
Do you blame David Berkowitz’s neighbor’s dog for his killings, too? I assume so, since that’s pretty much what you do when you blame lobbyists for government actions.[/quote]
Sad analogy. If you want to keep blinders on to the power of private money then that is your perogative. You are completely blinded by ideology and cannot see the real power in the U.S.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
This is pretty much my position on lobbyists.
While I like Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy I believe he defends an economic model which sounds good in theory but when applied to real life often has an effect not intended. To actually think that there are enough politcians who are immune to the cohersion of big money is a dream that will never come true in the real world. Corporations need to be regulated and the money they can give needs to be capped.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
While I like Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy I believe he defends an economic model which sounds good in theory but when applied to real life often has an effect not intended. To actually think that there are enough politcians who are immune to the cohersion of big money is a dream that will never come true in the real world. Corporations need to be regulated and the money they can give needs to be capped. [/quote]
Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy is the same as his economic policy is the same as his social policy. It’s non-interventionist.
“Big money” is not going to disappear. It’s going to be there. That needs to be understood. I agree with you that it’s a pipe dream to think there are people immune to money and power…that is why I don’t understand why you support giving some people the power to make decisions for others.
We can either grant government the power to do the bidding of those behind “big money”, which is the policy you support, or we can minimize government’s power to make policies supporting “big money”, which is the policy I support. You admit you don’t believe there are many politicians immune to the coercion(I’m guessing that’s what you meant when you said “cohersion”) of big money, yet you trust those same politicians to regulate those with that money. That is insane.
When you vote for economic intervention, you give power to the corporations you claim to be against.
We have the system you believe in. It’s just not implemented exactly the way you want it to be(and never can be, since the ‘little man’ will never be able to spend as much for his rights as corporations).
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Again nothing of substance from you. No wonder you like Faux News. The Real News takes no government hand-outs or advertising dollars from corporations. Nor are they owned by an even bigger corporation so they do not have to tow the line. Unlike corporate news sources who’s main thrust is profit not the truth.[/quote]
Perhaps Real News ahould change their business model so that they can generate the revenue required to hire Real Journalists.
Since they no longer own the NYT - perhaps GE might be interested in Real News. I think it would be the perfect match. They both want the government to be grown to levels no one can afford.
[/quote]
Real journalists, you mean like Hannity, O’Rielly and Beck.[/quote]
None of the three are journalists. I don’t listen to or watch either of the first two. I listen to Beck mainly for the witty repartee between Pat and Stew. Although - Beck has been making some eerily accurate predictions over the last several months.
For-profit >>>>> non-profit every time, all the time, anytime and twice on Sundays.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Again nothing of substance from you. No wonder you like Faux News. The Real News takes no government hand-outs or advertising dollars from corporations. Nor are they owned by an even bigger corporation so they do not have to tow the line. Unlike corporate news sources who’s main thrust is profit not the truth.[/quote]
Perhaps Real News ahould change their business model so that they can generate the revenue required to hire Real Journalists.
Since they no longer own the NYT - perhaps GE might be interested in Real News. I think it would be the perfect match. They both want the government to be grown to levels no one can afford.
[/quote]
Real journalists, you mean like Hannity, O’Rielly and Beck.[/quote]
None of the three are journalists. I don’t listen to or watch either of the first two. I listen to Beck mainly for the witty repartee between Pat and Stew. Although - Beck has been making some eerily accurate predictions over the last several months.
For-profit >>>>> non-profit every time, all the time, anytime and twice on Sundays.
[/quote]
For profit does not work in all markets. Information and healthcare creates perversions. Some markets need to be non-profit so the perversion doesn’t take over and distort that which ought to be the goal. Not profits!
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
While I like Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy I believe he defends an economic model which sounds good in theory but when applied to real life often has an effect not intended. To actually think that there are enough politcians who are immune to the cohersion of big money is a dream that will never come true in the real world. Corporations need to be regulated and the money they can give needs to be capped. [/quote]
Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy is the same as his economic policy is the same as his social policy. It’s non-interventionist.
“Big money” is not going to disappear. It’s going to be there. That needs to be understood. I agree with you that it’s a pipe dream to think there are people immune to money and power…that is why I don’t understand why you support giving some people the power to make decisions for others.
We can either grant government the power to do the bidding of those behind “big money”, which is the policy you support, or we can minimize government’s power to make policies supporting “big money”, which is the policy I support. You admit you don’t believe there are many politicians immune to the coercion(I’m guessing that’s what you meant when you said “cohersion”) of big money, yet you trust those same politicians to regulate those with that money. That is insane.
When you vote for economic intervention, you give power to the corporations you claim to be against.
We have the system you believe in. It’s just not implemented exactly the way you want it to be(and never can be, since the ‘little man’ will never be able to spend as much for his rights as corporations). [/quote]
What happened when government shrank in the finance sector? The regulations were gutted and under funded at the behest of major bankers to get those pesky government regulations out of there way so they could do what they want. They crashed big-time!
At least we have can have some control over government by voting. There is no one accountable in corporations to the public. Vote 3rd party, have a soul.
Hey Zeppelin hot avatar 
makes me have impure thoughts
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
For profit does not work in all markets. Information and healthcare creates perversions. Some markets need to be non-profit so the perversion doesn’t take over and distort that which ought to be the goal. Not profits!
[/quote]
If you can quantify a product or service as a market, then a free market (for profit) is far superior to an unfree, or captive, market by every conceivable metric.
LOL at you still going to bat for people who refuse to take baths and drape themselves in self-righteous monkey piss.
A truly free market is the most efficient mesh of supply meeting demand on the planet. This is an absolute truth.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
For profit does not work in all markets. Information and healthcare creates perversions. Some markets need to be non-profit so the perversion doesn’t take over and distort that which ought to be the goal. Not profits!
[/quote]
If you can quantify a product or service as a market, then a free market (for profit) is far superior to an unfree, or captive, market by every conceivable metric.
LOL at you still going to bat for people who refuse to take baths and drape themselves in self-righteous monkey piss.
A truly free market is the most efficient mesh of supply meeting demand on the planet. This is an absolute truth. [/quote]
If free-markets work in every market then what happened to healthcare? We pay twice as much as anyone else in the world and it is the number one cause for bankruptcy. Wow, how efficient! We must be the envy of the world. Too bad the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. Otherwise they would have a healthcare system like us. Controlled by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately for you, you have to mold the facts to fit your ideology instead of letting evidence guide you in your ideology.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If free-markets work in every market then what happened to healthcare?
[/quote]
Exactly what I have said happened to it over and again: Government got involved, and opened the door for crony capitalism.
And your solution for too much government intrusion is more government intrusion - and more crony capitalism - and even higher medical expenses.
Maybe I should get a job at Real News, then you’d be my biggest fan.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What happened when government shrank in the finance sector? The regulations were gutted and under funded at the behest of major bankers to get those pesky government regulations out of there way so they could do what they want. They crashed big-time!
At least we have can have some control over government by voting. There is no one accountable in corporations to the public. Vote 3rd party, have a soul. [/quote]
Bankers wanted to crash “big-time”? That seems to be what you are saying. How did crashing work in favor of bankers? I’m not going to comment on the rest of your first paragraph, but I will say that incompetent businesses are supposed to crash.
A corporation should(I say “should” because your kind believes the government needs to forcibly take money from the public in order to bail out unsuccessful corporations) not have to be accountable to anyone except itself. Its need to make a profit should(see first sentence for an explanation of this) take care of problems.
Example: Corporation A does something Zeppelin doesn’t like, so Zeppelin buys from Corporation B. Many people agree with Zeppelin and begin buying from Corporation B. Corporation A loses money. Corporation A can either go out of business or continue to operate at a loss because its shareholders consider losing money an exhilarating hobby. Corporation A goes out of business because the second option is absurd.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If free-markets work in every market then what happened to healthcare?
[/quote]
Exactly what I have said happened to it over and again: Government got involved, and opened the door for crony capitalism.
And your solution for too much government intrusion is more government intrusion - and more crony capitalism - and even higher medical expenses.
Maybe I should get a job at Real News, then you’d be my biggest fan. [/quote]
Funny how other countries have government run healthcare and they pay half as much. Well I guess there fgoes that theory.
Your solution is get governemt out of the way and everything workd out just fine. Funny how wghen they got out of the way the financial bubblbe ubrst So your solution is more of that?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What happened when government shrank in the finance sector? The regulations were gutted and under funded at the behest of major bankers to get those pesky government regulations out of there way so they could do what they want. They crashed big-time!
At least we have can have some control over government by voting. There is no one accountable in corporations to the public. Vote 3rd party, have a soul. [/quote]
Bankers wanted to crash “big-time”? That seems to be what you are saying. How did crashing work in favor of bankers? I’m not going to comment on the rest of your first paragraph, but I will say that incompetent businesses are supposed to crash.
A corporation should(I say “should” because your kind believes the government needs to forcibly take money from the public in order to bail out unsuccessful corporations) not have to be accountable to anyone except itself. Its need to make a profit should(see first sentence for an explanation of this) take care of problems.
Example: Corporation A does something Zeppelin doesn’t like, so Zeppelin buys from Corporation B. Many people agree with Zeppelin and begin buying from Corporation B. Corporation A loses money. Corporation A can either go out of business or continue to operate at a loss because its shareholders consider losing money an exhilarating hobby. Corporation A goes out of business because the second option is absurd.[/quote]
Nice theory ut when you have oligarchys the publbic has limited choices.
Who ws for the bailout? Noone that I;m familiar with especially :my kind:
What the bankers did was like going to Vegas and playing with the houses money. It doesn;t mtter if you loose because someone is there to cover up for the losses.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If free-markets work in every market then what happened to healthcare?
[/quote]
Exactly what I have said happened to it over and again: Government got involved, and opened the door for crony capitalism.
And your solution for too much government intrusion is more government intrusion - and more crony capitalism - and even higher medical expenses.
Maybe I should get a job at Real News, then you’d be my biggest fan. [/quote]
Funny how other countries have government run healthcare and they pay half as much. Well I guess there fgoes that theory.
Your solution is get governemt out of the way and everything workd out just fine. Funny how wghen they got out of the way the financial bubblbe ubrst So your solution is more of that?
[/quote]
Financial meltdown has nothing to do with healthcare. Oh. You’re trying to compare grapes and lemons and pass it off as a logical argument because you assume everyone on the planet is as ignorant as you are. Hate to poke a hole in your blimp, Zeppy, but my one-eyed hairless deaf dog isn’t as ignorant as you and he thinks licking his ass is a suitable bedtime snack.
Instead of starting your little retard saga with the repealing of glass-steagall, how about you include the 30 yeears leading up to it? Oh - that’s right - it doesn’
t fit with your government-good business-bad propaganda.
Meh - you’ve heard all this before, and yet you still ooze ignorance from every pore. It’s like you have intellectual acne. Try washing your face with the truth.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Nice theory ut when you have oligarchys the publbic has limited choices.
Who ws for the bailout? Noone that I;m familiar with especially :my kind:
What the bankers did was like going to Vegas and playing with the houses money. It doesn;t mtter if you loose because someone is there to cover up for the losses.[/quote]
I’m not sure what theory you’re talking about, so I can’t respond to that.
Many, many Americans support bailouts, but are just too stupid to realize it. When one votes to give government control over the economy, he or she casts a vote in favor of bailouts.
The house being the citizenry, I suppose? You almost have a point there…if the house robbed non-casino goers on the street and gave that money to the biggest spending losing players in the casino, in order to allow them to keep playing. You are like a non-casino goer who is outraged you were robbed to pay for the losses of the biggest spending losers and not the old lady who lost 15 straight pulls on the slot machine. You don’t care about the fact you were robbed, just that your money was used in a way you didn’t want it to be.
Some people would respond to such outrage by saying something like, “No shit, Sherlock. Who do you think the casino wants to keep around? The one who just gave it $50,000 or $3.75?”
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If free-markets work in every market then what happened to healthcare?
[/quote]
Exactly what I have said happened to it over and again: Government got involved, and opened the door for crony capitalism.
And your solution for too much government intrusion is more government intrusion - and more crony capitalism - and even higher medical expenses.
Maybe I should get a job at Real News, then you’d be my biggest fan. [/quote]
Funny how other countries have government run healthcare and they pay half as much. Well I guess there fgoes that theory.
Your solution is get governemt out of the way and everything workd out just fine. Funny how wghen they got out of the way the financial bubblbe ubrst So your solution is more of that?
[/quote]
Financial meltdown has nothing to do with healthcare. Oh. You’re trying to compare grapes and lemons and pass it off as a logical argument because you assume everyone on the planet is as ignorant as you are. Hate to poke a hole in your blimp, Zeppy, but my one-eyed hairless deaf dog isn’t as ignorant as you and he thinks licking his ass is a suitable bedtime snack.
Instead of starting your little retard saga with the repealing of glass-steagall, how about you include the 30 yeears leading up to it? Oh - that’s right - it doesn’
t fit with your government-good business-bad propaganda.
Meh - you’ve heard all this before, and yet you still ooze ignorance from every pore. It’s like you have intellectual acne. Try washing your face with the truth.
[/quote]
Im not sayintg the financial meltdown was tied to healthcare Im just giving another example to try and broaden your slim horizins. Funny how when the financial government regulations were in tact there wasnr a collapse but get evil goveertnment out of the way and let the free-market reign and we have a calamnity. It happens every time. You just see a coincidence not a causation. As if?