Obama's Approval Rating at 45%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Where are those monopolistic corporations?

They were everywhere around a century ago. They’re here now. You don’t pay attention to the bad parts of history, though, so I’m not surprised you missed them.

I can always chose to take my business elsewhere so yes, I prefer to vote with my feet.

Again, that’s fantastic. Ask them how it worked out with Standard Oil and US Steel.

Even if there were monopolies, which there are not, the sheer threat of competition would keep them in line.

You really are too entertaining. Don’t ever lose that.

Giovernments know no such threat, they are territorial violence monopolies.

And he wraps it up with a bitter libertarian talking point. I give this dive an 9.5 out of 10!

[/quote]

Thank you!

Where are these monopolies?

Name three that do not depend on government intervention.

62

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Where the president can have a quite substantial effect is in the expectations that businesses have for the future.

If their expectation is that the future is such that if they take the risk of investing capital and expanding their business in some way, if this is successful the profits will be taxed away anyway while if money is lost, that is money lost, then they are not so eager to expand their business.

Imagine you own, say, a few stores and are thinking of building another. Why do it if, should the store lose money, you are out the money, but if it makes money, so much of it will be taxed away that you might as well not do it?

And let’s add in expectations for the future such as being forced to buy health insurance for these employees that would be added, and learning from the CBO that their projection is that the cost of such acceptable-to-the-government insurance will be $15K/year for a family of four.

And expectations of carbon taxes and all kinds of other things.

Versus an alternate “Morning in America” expectation of reduced taxes.

Is this going to have no influence on your decisions?

And then of course there is the direct effect, on higher taxes on employers being implemented, that they now have less money to do anything with.

Bill, I guess the point I was trying to make with my last point was that it is the ultimate balance of power that has more effect on the economy than the president himself. A democratic president with a republican majority congress(or vice verse)…good times. The children are tied up in gridlock and can do less harm. [/quote]

Agreed. What I had said above is applicable only when the president has or is perceived to have, collectively with Congress, the power to make capital investment or addition of employees less potentially rewarding or simply not worth the risk or cost.

63

[quote]orion wrote:Thank you!

Where are these monopolies?

Name three that do not depend on government intervention.[/quote]

Another classic libertarian debate tactic: subtly introduce bad assumptions. You assume that there’s something you can do under capitalism to eliminate government intervention and favoritism. It hasn’t worked yet. Thus, the qualifier: “that do not depend on government intervention” is utterly irrelevant. That the libertarians compartmentalize business and the state and keep them separate in their reasonings does not mean that they really are so. You ask me to name an example where the apparatus invented by the elite to protect the elite has defied them. What a nice, simple world you must inhabit.

64

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Thank you!

Where are these monopolies?

Name three that do not depend on government intervention.

Another classic libertarian debate tactic: subtly introduce bad assumptions. You assume that there’s something you can do under capitalism to eliminate government intervention and favoritism. It hasn’t worked yet. Thus, the qualifier: “that do not depend on government intervention” is utterly irrelevant. That the libertarians compartmentalize business and the state and keep them separate in their reasonings does not mean that they really are so. You ask me to name an example where the apparatus invented by the elite to protect the elite has defied them. What a nice, simple world you must inhabit.

[/quote]
Ryan, where were you first introduced to socialism and what exactly was it that attracted you to it? One of the reasons that I ask is that your location states Tennessee. I too am from Tennessee (Nashville area) and the area is not generally known for its socialist leanings. Did you grow up here or just go to school here.
Also what authors and works did you study to develop the structure and foundation of your philosophy? Was the door opened through the Green meme that is so prevalent in today’s college culture, or is it a family leaning?
Real questions. I’m not picking or setting you up. Just interested.

Jeaton

65

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What a nice, simple world you must inhabit.

[/quote]

As oppossed to some purely theoretical anarcho-socialist world? Where we just gotta know things would be swell?

66

My guess on the allure, rather like a moth feels for flame, that Mr McCarter finds in socialism:

“To each according to his need? Oh boy. I will be taken care of and so will everybody!”

“From each according to his ability? No problem for me, it’s not like I have much to contribute! And those greedy rich folk certainly shouldn’t keep their profits but instead should be made to provide for what I need. I mean, like, that’s obvious. Golly gosh, this socialism stuff is really swell!”

67

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I’ve given you a list of former republican Presidents and presidential candidates who were made to look stupid by a left leaning press.

Well, I’m very sad for you, but unfortunately, that doesn’t mean anything. You assume that the republican candidates would not have looked stupid if they were covered by a republican press, when in fact, I’m sorry to tell you, republicans frequently look stupid because of the asinine positions they take on issues. I watch Fox News from time to time and they STILL look stupid. I’m sorry to burst so many of your bubbles.[/quote]

Oh yes, the Junior liberal merry-go-round. YOU think they’re stupid so they are? Yes, they must be because you are such a wise little boy who just knows he’r right. (chuckle)

You charge others with the exact crime that you are actually guilty of! You’re logic is non-existent. You tell me that I have no facts to back up my premise, yet you say those big bad republicans (that you fear so much) are really stupid. How do you know this? You know this because you THINK it’s true. Ha ha, sure everyone of them just happen to be stupid. Darn the republicans just can’t seem to get a candidate that looks good to the liberal press (for 60 odd years), or to liberal teens (oh sorry 20 now?) who has never paid taxes, or probably voted. Don’t get me wrong however, that’s not WHY you’re wrong. You’re wrong because you have no facts to back up your wild assertions. But, I do tend to think that if you were just a tad older (wiser too) you wouldn’t be charging that I’m the one making false assumptions (when I’ve given you facts), by using false assumptions yourself.

You’re a funny little tyke.

68

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:You might just be the last person on earth to maintain that there is no bias toward the democrats. You do this why? Is it because you’re not keep up?

I’m sorry, the rest of the world saying something does not make it true. Again, I’m sorry you’re wrong, but be an adult and deal with it.

“A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and HarvardÃ?¢??s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy has found that the media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign was more likely to be spun in a positive manner toward Democrats than Republicans.”

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats
As I’ve told you junior every republican President and presidential candidate has had to face this.

Again, you make the assumption that there was actually nothing to be negative about. Hell, it was McCain and Palin. Their campaign was a joke. There was precious little to be positive about. Again, the press are not beholden to you.[/quote]

Yes, of course, it has to be the dumb republicans AGAIN. Darn the luck, from Eisenhower to McCain the republicans just can’t field a candidate who isn’t dumb. Plenty of negative things to report about all those dumb republicans huh?

You little idiot.

[quote]Start with a logical and complete retort of the Harvard study.

Why would I, when it’s absolutely irrrelevant? [/quote]

A legitimate report from Harvard is NOT irrelevant. Oh, yes, to you it is, I understand sort of like holding your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la I can’t hear you la la la”.

Here’s one from UCLA which determined that the press leans LEFT:

“…there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,”

Those pesky studies just keep getting in the way of your illogical and baised conclusions. Gee, what to do, what to do?

[quote]
When you’ve finished that you can then begin trying to explain why the press has called virtually every republican President and presidential candidate “stupid” over the past 60 years.

Because they HAVE BEEN stupid.[/quote]

Do you realize your entire argument is “since the press said they were stupid they must be”. Tell me Einstein how do you prove that the press is not biased by saying “they’re right, they’re right”.

Exactly who is paying for your college tuition? Just give them the money back, a clear conscience is far more important.

[quote]They really spoon feed the koolaide in college, sad, very sad.

I’m sorry, when you go to school, you learn a little bit about pesky things like logical arguments. [/quote]

You’ve shown zero logic in your debating skills on this thread junior. You cannot prove your point by stamping your feet and claiming the press is right because YOU say it is.

(eye roll)

This isn’t going well for you kid.

69

Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

70

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine. [/quote]

Now THAT is my kind of socialism. Where do I sign up for party membership?

71

This is pretty stupid. Why don’t one of you claiming the media is liberally biased produced some articles that demonstrate this bias. You are just saying back and forth, “No, I’m right”. Since you claim that the demonstrated Democratic supermajority in the media produces harmful, untruthful news sources, the burden is on you to show this.

When you say, “the media mostly votes Democratic, therefore their coverage of Palin is unfair,” the conclusion simply does not follow the premises.

72

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine. [/quote]

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.

73

[quote]tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.[/quote]

You are the same fucks who hate estate taxes because you want to pass on all your hard earned capital to your kids when you die.

74

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Again, that’s fantastic. Ask them how it worked out with Standard Oil and US Steel.
[/quote]

Terrible examples of “evil” monopolies. Both of those companies shattered the price of their respective good and increased the standard of living across America.

Really the “Barons” of that period in US history did FAR more good than evil.

75

[quote]tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.[/quote]

It does help to have a few years under your belt and have paid the tax man about half of what you make to fully realize that socialism is not the way to go.

76

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.

You are the same fucks who hate estate taxes because you want to pass on all your hard earned capital to your kids when you die.

[/quote]

I know that always ticks me off too. Can you imagine a guy working hard all his life and then actually wanting to leave his hard earned dollars to his children? What the heck is he thinking? It just makes me laugh when I even think about it. It’s quite obvious the inheritance should go to the government, they deserve that money.

Okay IgneLudo, now if you could just get all the hardworking people who actually make this country successful to go along with you. Ha, then we’d have some CHANGE change we could believe in. YES WE CAN!

(eye roll)

77

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Thank you!

Where are these monopolies?

Name three that do not depend on government intervention.

Another classic libertarian debate tactic: subtly introduce bad assumptions. You assume that there’s something you can do under capitalism to eliminate government intervention and favoritism. It hasn’t worked yet. Thus, the qualifier: “that do not depend on government intervention” is utterly irrelevant. That the libertarians compartmentalize business and the state and keep them separate in their reasonings does not mean that they really are so. You ask me to name an example where the apparatus invented by the elite to protect the elite has defied them. What a nice, simple world you must inhabit.

[/quote]

Hey, we know that they work together and we hate it.

Your policies however would make them ONE!

We know that a libertarian “utopia” is not perfect but at least it dilutes power over so many entities that you gave a lot of wiggle room.

If you give more and more power to the state, and liberal policies invariably do that, you have less and less room to breathe.

YOur solution to the “monopolies” of the market is creating one big monopoly with an army

YOur solution to the “coercion” of the market place are armed men who would force us to not to be “coerced”.

I believe that we see the same problems, but your solution would make things worse, not better.

Human beings are what they are, they do not necessarily become saints just because they work for the government.

78

[quote]ZEB wrote:
IgneLudo wrote:
tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.

You are the same fucks who hate estate taxes because you want to pass on all your hard earned capital to your kids when you die.

I know that always ticks me off too. Can you imagine a guy working hard all his life and then actually wanting to leave his hard earned dollars to his children? What the heck is he thinking? It just makes me laugh when I even think about it. It’s quite obvious the inheritance should go to the government, they deserve that money.

Okay IgneLudo, now if you could just get all the hardworking people who actually make this country successful to go along with you. Ha, then we’d have some CHANGE change we could believe in. YES WE CAN!

(eye roll)

[/quote]

Your children really appreciate that free college tuition. Why should they have to work at all as long as their father made enough money? They tried hard getting born into that family.

79

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.

You are the same fucks who hate estate taxes because you want to pass on all your hard earned capital to your kids when you die.

[/quote]

If you are not being sarcastic, you’re a very stupid person. If you’re ebing sarcastic, well, haha!

80

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
ZEB wrote:
IgneLudo wrote:
tom63 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Ryan’s definition of Socialism - what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine.

About right for your average college kid with mommy and daddy paying for things.

You are the same fucks who hate estate taxes because you want to pass on all your hard earned capital to your kids when you die.

I know that always ticks me off too. Can you imagine a guy working hard all his life and then actually wanting to leave his hard earned dollars to his children? What the heck is he thinking? It just makes me laugh when I even think about it. It’s quite obvious the inheritance should go to the government, they deserve that money.

Okay IgneLudo, now if you could just get all the hardworking people who actually make this country successful to go along with you. Ha, then we’d have some CHANGE change we could believe in. YES WE CAN!

(eye roll)

Your children really appreciate that free college tuition. Why should they have to work at all as long as their father made enough money? They tried hard getting born into that family.

[/quote]

Listen very carefully stupid person, if I want to leave whatever I made to my wife, kids, grandchildren, neighbors, uncle, aunt or anyone else it’s my money and I should be able to do that. The state didn’t give me the money, I made it on my own. It should NOT go to the state after I pass as I was taxed while I was making that money.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT?

Now run along I’m sick of your nonsense.