Politics

[wizards8507]

It's great being a veteran and having folks call you a commie. I gave up good hearing and my knees so they'd continue to have the right to do it and I'd do it all over again.

1. Communists have armies, too.

2. Thank you for your service.

 

[BobD]

The Check Republic is where 'independents' like Bob go to get their grocery money...

Sorry to disappoint you, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[ACamp1900]

Sorry to disappoint you, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

Just returning your hard time from yesterday...


...



commie, checking collectin, bastard...

 

[connor_in]

I guess we're gunna need a new one of these:

 

[chicago51]

1. Communists have armies, too.

2. Thank you for your service.

Do you equate liberalism with communism?

If so are you then saying FDR, Truman, JKF, and LBJ were communist too?

For that matter would you consider Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower to be communist?

 

[connor_in]

Kerry: 'I Don't Know What You Mean By The Reset' | Washington Free Beacon

uh-oh

 

[connor_in]

U.S. delegation to skip Sochi Paralympic Games - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

“President Obama continues to strongly support all of the U.S. athletes who will participate in the Paralympics and wishes them great success in the Olympic competition.”

...

American athletes will still compete at the Sochi Paralympic Games, which are to begin Friday.

The White House delegation was to have been led by Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and included Assistant Labor Secretary Kathy Martinez; Celeste Wallender, the NSC’s point woman for Russia; Anthony Robles, a member of the President’s Council of Fitness, Sports and Nutrition; Brian Mosteller, the director of Oval Office operations; and past Paralympic Games medalist Sandra Dukat.

 

[wizards8507]

Do you equate liberalism with communism?

If so are you then saying FDR, Truman, JKF, and LBJ were communist too?

For that matter would you consider Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower to be communist?

I don't think you know what "liberal" means. More precisely, I don't think you understand how the definition of "liberal" has changed over time. Classical liberalism, i.e. Jeffersonian liberalism, is closest to modern day libertarianism and (dare I say?) Tea Party conservatism. Go read F.A. Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative" and it'll explain things better than I have the patience to attempt. If you think Jeffersonian liberalism has anything to do with modern-day liberalism, then we don't even have a starting point at which to being a conversation.

When Hayek says "socialist," he's referring to modern-day liberalism.
When Hayek says "conservative," he's referring to Rick Santorum "establishment" GOP types.
When Hayek says "liberal," he's referring to modern-day libertarian conservatism.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

All of that aside, I was joking and do not believe BobD is a communist.

 

[chicago51]

I don't think you know what "liberal" means. More precisely, I don't think you understand how the definition of "liberal" has changed over time. Classical liberalism, i.e. Jeffersonian liberalism, is closest to modern day libertarianism and (dare I say?) Tea Party conservatism. Go read F.A. Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative" and it'll explain things better than I have the patience to attempt. If you think Jeffersonian liberalism has anything to do with modern-day liberalism, then we don't even have a starting point at which to being a conversation.

When Hayek says "socialist," he's referring to modern-day liberalism.
When Hayek says "conservative," he's referring to Rick Santorum "establishment" GOP types.
When Hayek says "liberal," he's referring to modern-day libertarian conservatism.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

All of that aside, I was joking and do not believe BobD is a communist.

CATO was founded by the Kochs so excuse me if I don't believe that stuff.

Did you know Jefferson and James wanted an 11th amendment in the Bill of Rights protecting Americans from monopolies?

The Boston Tea Party was a reaction not only to the sales tax put on tea but also because the East India Company was given biggest corporate tax break maybe in the history of the world.

The Classically Liberal Argument for Higher Taxes on the Rich - Josh Dowlut - Seeking Alpha

Thomas Jefferson was also far more anti-aristocracy and pro-progressive taxes than any modern Tea Partier would ever let on. While Jefferson shared Smith’s inequality and fairness concerns, Jefferson’s main reason was to guard against the rise of a permanent ruling class that could challenge or control the government. Smith had a similar concern and explicitly cautioned against electing the Mitt Romney and Herman Cains of the world. The Founding Fathers understood that liberty could be threatened by 3 distinct sources:

1. unlimited government

2. unlimited aristocracy, or

3. unlimited majority rule

Preserving liberty requires a nuanced balance of guarding against the ascendancy of all three. Unfortunately, modern pro-liberty types have lost sight of guarding against all but the government component. If it were that simple, eliminating all government would be the path to liberty, but there is not a constant, inverse relationship between the size of government, and the amount of individual liberty. Government, especially limited, self-government, is an artificial construct to guard against anarchy’s trend towards rule by force. Broadly speaking, we would probably be more free if there were less government relative to what we have now, but we would also probably be much less free were we to eliminate it all together. While granting government the power to crush aristocracy may be blasphemy to anti-government types, it should be supported by pro-liberty types who understand all of this. By focusing only on the government component, modern Tea Party types switch from being pro-liberty, to merely being anti-government, while simultaneously being pro-aristocracy.

Jefferson’s best outtakes on the subject:

"I hope that we crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Challenge our government…kind of like being able to control the government through bailing out everyone who is too big to fail.

Bid defiance to the laws of our country…kind of like certain Fortune 100 companies paying zero corporate income tax on literally hundreds of millions, and sometimes billions of dollars of profit.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Property Rights

"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682

 

[wizards8507]

CATO was founded by the Kochs so excuse me if I don't believe that stuff.

Thank you for proving your ignorance. You've now validated that I don't have to bother listening to a word you say. The article I linked, if you even bothered to open it (which you obviously did not) was written by F. A. Hayek in 1960 when the "Kochs" were 25 and 20 years old. The PDF is the unabridged text as written by Hayek without any spin from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The "ruling class" feared by early liberals were not wealthy people, they were a permanent ruling class. The Clintons, Kennedys, and Bushes would have haunted Jefferson much much more than Mitt Romney or Herman Cain. On a related note, my man Rand Paul would like to see term limits so that members of Congress could only serve 12 years in each house.

 

[chicago51]

Cato was founded in 74 and one its founders was Charles G Koch. So the article predated the founding Cato used it on its site for a reason so excuse me if I don't trust the source.

Not saying Jefferson would be thrilled with the Democratic Party by any menas. We do know from Jefferson actually writings he favored progressive taxation.

If Jefferson had lived through the industrial revolution he would likely favored many of the distributionalist programs that exist today. He favored giving uncultvated lands to the unemployed as agriculture as the economy of the time.

Jefferson envision a nation of independent farmers, the small business of his time. He would absolutely be in favor the government using antitrust legistlation to break up oligarchies and monopolies which neither party has chosen to do since Reagan. Too big to fail = too big to exist. Jefferson and James Madison wanted protections from monopolies in the Bill of Rights because the experience with the East India Company arguably the biggest corporation that ever existed.

Would Jefferson be alarmed with the size of government? Yes. Would Jefferson be in favor of unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security? Yes I believe he would.

There is some merit to term limits but let me play devils advocate. So you only got 12 years and then you are out. So couldn't a lobbyist say hey keep your head down do what we wannt and we'll give you a job when your 12 years are up. The result of term limits is that it ends up being the lobbyist that know how to get things done.

You really want to a government that responds to the people amend the constitution to so that corporations are not people and money isn't free speech. Then set campaign limits that are very very small.

The tea party supposedly ran against this corruption yet every 2012 tea
party freshman took campaign money from wall street.

 

[connor_in]

1 hour and 22 min into Command Authority, Tom Clancy's last Jack Ryan book, a Russian agent tells a former British agent about the Russian president's plan to invade Ukraine and control Crimea...

Listening to it on way to work today and thought...weird

 

[connor_in]

Cato was founded in 74 and one its founders was Charles G Koch. So the article predated the founding Cato used it on its site for a reason so excuse me if I don't trust the source.

Not saying Jefferson would be thrilled with the Democratic Party by any menas. We do know from Jefferson actually writings he favored progressive taxation.

If Jefferson had lived through the industrial revolution he would likely favored many of the distributionalist programs that exist today. He favored giving uncultvated lands to the unemployed as agriculture as the economy of the time.

Jefferson envision a nation of independent farmers, the small business of his time. He would absolutely be in favor the government using antitrust legistlation to break up oligarchies and monopolies which neither party has chosen to do since Reagan. Too big to fail = too big to exist. Jefferson and James Madison wanted protections from monopolies in the Bill of Rights because the experience with the East India Company arguably the biggest corporation that ever existed.

Would Jefferson be alarmed with the size of government? Yes. Would Jefferson be in favor of unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security? Yes I believe he would.

There is some merit to term limits but let me play devils advocate. So you only got 12 years and then you are out. So couldn't a lobbyist say hey keep your head down do what we wannt and we'll give you a job when your 12 years are up. The result of term limits is that it ends up being the lobbyist that know how to get things done.

You really want to a government that responds to the people amend the constitution to so that corporations are not people and money isn't free speech. Then set campaign limits that are very very small.

The tea party supposedly ran against this corruption yet every 2012 tea
party freshman took campaign money from wall street.

So let me get this straight...anything put out by any organization you don't agree with (or is used by them but pre-dates them or came from another source outside of them) is not worth the time and energy to look into and is OK to automatically dismiss out of hand.

Well then, tell me again why we should listen to/read/believe anything from any of your sources.

 

[chicago51]

So let me get this straight...anything put out by any organization you don't agree with (or is used by them but pre-dates them or came from another source outside of them) is not worth the time and energy to look into and is OK to automatically dismiss out of hand.

Well then, tell me again why we should listen to/read/believe anything from any of your sources.

If the source is the Daily Kos which only puts out liberal stuff then no.

If it is the New York Times or something maybe.

If it is mathematical data I'd definitely give something a look as that is hard evidence. If it is opinion I'm going to be more skeptical as you should be to.

The last post I was citing Jefferson quotes from stuff Jefferson wrote, not what some philosopher supposedly expert opinion is. The thought Jefferson's take on certain things was pretty unambiguous; he was pretty clear. No Jefferson is not a Democrat but he is not Tea Party Republican either, no way.

 

[wizards8507]

If the source is the Daily Kos which only puts out liberal stuff then no.

If it is the New York Times or something maybe.

If it is mathematical data I'd definitely give something a look as that is hard evidence. If it is opinion I'm going to be more skeptical as you should be to.

The last post I was citing Jefferson quotes from stuff Jefferson wrote, not what some philosopher supposedly expert opinion is. The thought Jefferson's take on certain things was pretty unambiguous; he was pretty clear. No Jefferson is not a Democrat but he is not Tea Party Republican either, no way.

I specifically TOLD you that the Hayek piece was an opinion piece. It was not "put out" by Cato, Cato just happened to link to it. The original PDF is probably somewhere in the University of Chicago archives and I don't have access to those. You tried to equate modern liberalism with Jeffersonian liberalism and they're just not the same thing.

 

[connor_in]

Jimmy Obama | New York Post

In a memo to Jimmy Carter three days after that Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, his national security adviser summed up well the problem of words bereft of action: “Since we have not always followed these verbal protests up with tangible responses, [the Russians] may be getting into the habit of disregarding our concern.”

Memo to President Obama: Putin is disregarding you in Crimea for the same reason.

 

[Black Irish]

It's great being a veteran and having folks call you a commie. I gave up good hearing and my knees so they'd continue to have the right to do it and I'd do it all over again.

Aw, come on Bob, I'm just having you on a bit. Seriously, thanks for your service. You're aces in my book.



Commie

 

[chicago51]

I specifically TOLD you that the Hayek piece was an opinion piece. It was not "put out" by Cato, Cato just happened to link to it. The original PDF is probably somewhere in the University of Chicago archives and I don't have access to those. You tried to equate modern liberalism with Jeffersonian liberalism and they're just not the same thing.

I specifically TOLD you LOL You sound like a nagging mom / house wife.

So are saying Jefferson would be okay with an oligarch marketplace?

Are you saying Jefferson would be okay with giving these same oligarch corporations as well foreign governments to give unlimited political contributions and buy democracy?

 

[wizards8507]

I specifically TOLD you LOL You sound like a nagging mom / house wife.

So are saying Jefferson would be okay with an oligarch marketplace?

Are you saying Jefferson would be okay with giving these same oligarch corporations as well foreign governments to give unlimited political contributions and buy democracy?

Explain how we're in an "oligarch" marketplace. First of all, "oligarch" doesn't even apply to a marketplace. The closest you'd get would be "oligopoly." Regardless, neither one describes the marketplace in which we live.

Do you understand what you're arguing for? You don't like big behemoth corporations, but you're a-okay with a big behemoth government that's powerful enough to swallow the big behemoth corporations whole. You'd give us Godzilla in the name of protecting us from King Kong. Spoiler alert: Godzilla is worse. The difference is, King Kong made a product or service that consumers need, want, or desire. That's how HE got so large. Godzilla got so large by confiscating private property and bankrupting future generations.

Furthermore, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "corporation" is. It's a favorite straw man of liberals to blame the "big, evil corporations" for all of the ills in the world. Do you know who owns corporations (for the most part)? Not Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, but Mrs. Jones the English teacher, Jim from the Local 156 carpenter's union, and farmer Bob in Tupelo, Mississippi. The largest holders of corporate stock are mutual funds and pension funds, meaning they support the savings and retirement of our population.

 

[wizards8507]

New O-Care delay to help midterm Dems | TheHill

As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.

YOU. CAN'T. DO. THAT.

"Obama will stop enforcing THE LAW THAT HE SIGNED."

The rule of law is such a fundamental component of an ordered society and it's completely being tossed out the window because our President doesn't like the potential impact HIS OWN LAW will have on his party's reelection chances in 2014.

 

[ACamp1900]

But give it time, everyone, including the President apparently, will learn to love it..

 

[GoIrish41]

Explain how we're in an "oligarch" marketplace. First of all, "oligarch" doesn't even apply to a marketplace. The closest you'd get would be "oligopoly." Regardless, neither one describes the marketplace in which we live.

Do you understand what you're arguing for? You don't like big behemoth corporations, but you're a-okay with a big behemoth government that's powerful enough to swallow the big behemoth corporations whole. You'd give us Godzilla in the name of protecting us from King Kong. Spoiler alert: Godzilla is worse. The difference is, King Kong made a product or service that consumers need, want, or desire. That's how HE got so large. Godzilla got so large by confiscating private property and bankrupting future generations.

Furthermore, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "corporation" is. It's a favorite straw man of liberals to blame the "big, evil corporations" for all of the ills in the world. Do you know who owns corporations (for the most part)? Not Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, but Mrs. Jones the English teacher, Jim from the Local 156 carpenter's union, and farmer Bob in Tupelo, Mississippi. The largest holders of corporate stock are mutual funds and pension funds, meaning they support the savings and retirement of our population.

Seriously, you are just going to dismiss the attempts of businessmen like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adleson to sway government to their wishes? And that big bad government that could swallow them whole just let it happen when they allowed these guys to speak as corporate citizens with the same free speech rights as Joe Six Pack. They are clearly on the same team. It's not about Godzilla or King Kong, its about the little people getting crushed under their massive feet as they pretend like they are fighting.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

But give it time, everyone, including the President apparently, will learn to love it..

which version...he's closing in on whatever Mark version Iron Man had gotten up to in Iron Man 3

but at least it is "settled law" or "the law of the land" or whatever

 

[wizards8507]

Seriously, you are just going to dismiss the attempts of businessmen like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adleson to sway government to their wishes? And that big bad government that could swallow them whole just let it happen when they allowed these guys to speak as corporate citizens with the same free speech rights as Joe Six Pack. They are clearly on the same team. It's not about Godzilla or King Kong, its about the little people getting crushed under their massive feet as they pretend like they are fighting.

First of all, there's plenty of money on the left too. Obama outraised everyone ever. I don't particularly like the impact that money plays in politics but free speech is free speech. Any evil that comes from money in politics is less evil (IMO) than stifling that speech.

which version...he's closing in on whatever Mark version Iron Man had gotten up to in Iron Man 3

42, duh.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[chicago51]

When 5 or fewer companies control 70 percent of a marketplace that is an oligarchy.

See before we stopped enforcing our antitrust laws under Reagan and every POTUS since him we had communities that consisted of locally owned businesses.

So when you brought something at a local store the local store owner spent the money locally. Money also went to local banks who turned lent out money to the community. So wealth stayed in communities.

Now you shop at Walmart, or some grocery chained owned by say Albertsons Coporation for example that money pays local workers but the rest of that gets sucked out and goes to Walmart HQ to the Walton family in Arkansas. Same for the banks. Local money that used to stay in communities ends up either at some corporate headquarters or Wall Street in New York.

If you parachuted out of an airplane onto Main St of some random town you would have no idea where you were. That used to not be the case when we had locally owned businesses.

This is not Jefferson's vision of independent farmers.

This by the way is a Democrat problem, a Republican problem, as well as a Tea Party problem as the parties have moved to the right on this issue.

I believe in was Taft that split Standard Oil into 30 pieces and the people loved him for it. We need to do the same thing with these too big to fail banks and companies like Walmart.

Competition on the market place brings prices down as well.

 

[wizards8507]

That's not what an oligarchy is. It just isn't.

"How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words."
-Samuel Adams

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[connor_in]

from Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

oligopoly
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Market situation in which producers are so few that the actions of each of them have an impact on price and on competitors. Each producer must consider the effect of a price change on the others. A cut in price by one may lead to an equal reduction by the others, with the result that each firm will retain about the same share of the market as before but with a lower profit margin. Competition in oligopolistic industries thus tends to manifest itself in nonprice forms such as advertising and product differentiation. Oligopolies in the U.S. include the steel, aluminum, and automobile industries. See also cartel, monopoly.


ol·i·gop·o·ly
noun \-ˈgä-pə-lē\

Definition of OLIGOPOLY

: a market situation in which each of a few producers affects but does not control the market

— ol·i·gop·o·list noun

— ol·i·gop·o·lis·tic adjective


Origin of OLIGOPOLY

olig- + -poly (as in monopoly)
First Known Use: 1895

oligarchy
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group.


ol·i·gar·chy
noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\

: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people

: the people that control a country, business, etc.

: government or control by a small group of people

pluralol·i·gar·chies


Full Definition of OLIGARCHY


1: government by the few


2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control


3: an organization under oligarchic control


See oligarchy defined for English-language learners »


See oligarchy defined for kids »


Examples of OLIGARCHY

Their nation is an oligarchy.
An oligarchy rules their nation.
The corporation is ruled by oligarchy.


First Known Use of OLIGARCHY

1542

 

[chicago51]

First of all, there's plenty of money on the left too. Obama outraised everyone ever. I don't particularly like the impact that money plays in politics but free speech is free speech. Any evil that comes from money in politics is less evil (IMO) than stifling that speech.







42, duh.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Oh there is plenty of money for the Democrats.

There is a small wing of the Demcoratic Party that wants to amend the consitution to end money as free speech.

We need an American wide movement to get the money out of politics.

My plug: MoveToAmend.org

1 - Rights of the Consitution apply to only natural persons not corporations or labor unions

2 - Money is not free speech

3 - This amendment shall not restrict freedom of the press

4 - Campaign contributions can be regulated by federal, state , and local governments

 

[pkt77242]

That's not what an oligarchy is. It just isn't.

"How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words."
-Samuel Adams

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I think he meant Oligopoly, at least that is what I think he meant.