Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

page: 32
47
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Every industry has the potential for corruption but to take a legal right away from people in order to pay laborers less and take away bargaining power... well, why not apply this to everyone.

Lots of guilty people are offered fair trials... Maybe we need to take away the peoples' right to a fair trial?
A lot of bad people spew a lot of bad lies... Maybe we need to take away free speech?


A "right" to collective bargaining? Which one of the Amendments would that be?

Here's the deal - if you have what is truly a "right", it CAN'T be taken away - you can only give it up by not exercising it. I'm not about to give my rights to a union. Speaking of that, where is my right to NOT be unionized? Sure, it stands now, but they're steadily trying to have it done away with so as to bump up union membership by coercion - don't unionize, don't work. It ain't going to happen, but they still give it the old college try.



You may feel you have the ability to pick and choose any job you want but a lot of people out there don't have the luxury. They need a paycheck and food on the table.


Why not? Do they have a bone in their leg that prevents movement? The ball-and chain that corporations always slap on 'em too tight to get off, and they just don't want to drag it? I'm not special - if I can do something, it's a fair bet that you can, too.



I don't see republicans calling for the dismantle of corporations due to rampant corporate greed, or the dismantle of military because of the abuse there. No, they are very selective in who they label as unnecessary... and it seems to always be the institution that gets in the way of their profits and power. How coincidental.


I dunno. I'm not a republican - they crapped in their own nest for me some time ago. I don't see the democrats doing any differently, though - just pushing to trade masters, so that THEY can come out on top, and you and I stay in our proper places - subservient to them. Y'know, they TALK a good game against corporations, but I'm not SEEING much in the way of progress. It's a DC Dog and Pony Show, and the ponies are on stage at the moment, but it's the same ringmasters calling the shots.

WHERE is the whompin' they've been promising corporations? They've got the conn, so where are the results?




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
You may feel you have the ability to pick and choose any job you want but a lot of people out there don't have the luxury. They need a paycheck and food on the table.


Why not? Do they have a bone in their leg that prevents movement? The ball-and chain that corporations always slap on 'em too tight to get off, and they just don't want to drag it? I'm not special - if I can do something, it's a fair bet that you can, too.


People have bills they need to pay. They need a job to pay the bills. Maybe a job where the conditions are terrible, the pay is too low, but it's better than nothing and everyone knows now is not the time to quit your job. Jobs are scarce. If you have income, consider yourself lucky. That's the real world. It may sound powerful and romantic to say 'You can take this job and shove it," but in the real world it's not always an option. Unions can help. They can also hurt, but to take that right away completely is to put all the power in the employer's hand.



I dunno. I'm not a republican - they crapped in their own nest for me some time ago. I don't see the democrats doing any differently, though - just pushing to trade masters, so that THEY can come out on top, and you and I stay in our proper places - subservient to them. Y'know, they TALK a good game against corporations, but I'm not SEEING much in the way of progress. It's a DC Dog and Pony Show, and the ponies are on stage at the moment, but it's the same ringmasters calling the shots.

WHERE is the whompin' they've been promising corporations? They've got the conn, so where are the results?


Democrats aren't the only team on the field. They are making some plays, making some fair pushes for the little guy, but Republicans are fighting them every step-- and Republicans are winning. Corporations are winning. Republican base cheers this on. Unemployment, healthcare, environment... none of these things help the wealthy... And the little guy does not have corporate backing.

The fight is there. Unfortunately, greed is winning.
edit on 30-9-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Oh, OK.

Thanks for straightening me out there.

To recap: It's OK to let the corporations slide, and give 'em bailouts so they don't fail during the pursuit of their ill-gotten gains when democrats are in power, because it's democrats in power, and they mean well, and the road they walk is paved with good intentions,

BUT

It's NOT ok to let corporations slide and give 'em bailouts when the republicans are in power, because, well, they're republicans and therefore evil.

Got it.

That's a relief - it was getting sort of confusing. For a minute there, I was thinking that there wasn't any difference in the results they were producing, and the only difference was in the promises they were making.

That's a relief - thanks for clearing it up for me!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 

Oh, OK.

Thanks for straightening me out there.

To recap: It's OK to let the corporations slide, and give 'em bailouts so they don't fail during the pursuit of their ill-gotten gains when democrats are in power, because it's democrats in power, and they mean well, and the road they walk is paved with good intentions,


I think we can both agree those corporate bailouts are examples of supreme greed destroying this country. Those bailouts are up there with 9/11. Inside jobs that generated such fear of what would happen if we didn't react. Financial Terrorism. Both Republican and Democratic presidents were convinced to pay... and who convinced them.. Those who whisper in their ears.

The ignorance and greed I'm referring to is the daily consistent position of one party to always choose corporations over people... Big Oil over the environment... to show complete lack of empathy toward the sick, the unemployed, the homeless.. Complete lack of responsibility for an environment we damage every day... A party that will vilify gays, muslims, and illegals while defending the ever expanding power of corporations over people. A party that supports government assistance for the wealthy while seeking to take away welfare and unemployment for those 'lazy' people in need... To even judge such struggling families and individuals as lazy... They will say teachers are lazy and deserve less than 60K a year while CEOs are job creators and deserve more billions. Money always found for war and the wealthy... but always too scarce to help regular people.

There is so much over the top greed and ignorance from the republican base and their followers that I could write a thousand more pages, a thousand more responses, because the evidence mounts every day with every new issue, and there is no truthful, righteous, moral defense against it.
edit on 1-10-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


You're right, there is no moral defense for what the republicans do now - which is why I left that party several years ago.

What I'm trying to point out is that there is no moral defense for what the democrats are doing, either. They are the right and left hands of the exact same body.

It hasn't been that long ago that Obama threatened the social security checks of old folks if he didn't get his way in DC, while at the same time championing bailouts for corporations, which is what you, rightly, accuse the republicans of also doing.

There is a difference in the rhetoric they both spew, but no difference at all in the results they actually strive for, when the rubber meets the road.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Gee....lets see here. JFK a democrat elected to the white house who issued an executive order to dismantle the Federal Reserve, had a sincere interest in ufo disclosure, was against secret socities, etc.

Guess what. He wasn't killed be lee harvey oswald. The cia killed him. Why? Because he actually gave a # enough to openly speak about those things and tried to do something positive.

Since then every single candidate regardless of party affiliation has been an nwo puppet. Its plain as day for those that understand history.

The kennedy family had a prominent history of being elite in ireland and they moved to the usa. Now we have the rockefellers going back to Standard Oil (back in the day) and the rothschild family, both with a virtual monopoly on banking and UN influence.

When you have trillionares who oppose sovereign nations in favor of world government and a world currency it should be no suprise these people with their immense influence will get what they want. Thats why it makes no difference who you vote for. Even if a socialist miraculously won they would be corrupt within days or killed.

All this however still does not excuse people from being ignorant and the baby boomers of wall street being so greedy they would throw their grandmother under the bus for a few extra dollars. They got sold "the american dream" come to america from your poor country and regardless of your background you will become wealthy by "hard work".

They became wealthy because of corruption at washington dc. first and foremost! You imply that both parties are the same, admitted that you were an ex republican and now an independent, yet fail to understand the theoretical differences between the two sides. At this point the issue isn't about gay/lesbian rights, abortion or religion yet that is 99% of what is being pushed by the RNC while the issue of corporations versus unions gets swept under the carpet, just like many other topics of outmost importance.

Someone who avoids discussing a topic because it goes against his/her best interest is a filthy weasel! Don't take this personal, its meant for the weasels who know exactly what they are doing...THAT IS SCREWING AMERICA!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Gee....lets see here. JFK a democrat elected to the white house who issued an executive order to dismantle the Federal Reserve, had a sincere interest in ufo disclosure, was against secret socities, etc.

Guess what. He wasn't killed be lee harvey oswald. The cia killed him. Why? Because he actually gave a # enough to openly speak about those things and tried to do something positive.



That's a matter of opinion. I could say that he was killed by the Secret Service on orders from LBJ to effect a coup, with as much evidence. But then that ain't really the topic of this thread. That conspiracy is a whole 'nuther thread - or a thousand.



You imply that both parties are the same, admitted that you were an ex republican and now an independent, yet fail to understand the theoretical differences between the two sides.


Oh, I understand the theoretical differences - I'm saying they don't amount to squat in the real world, where practical application occurs. Those theoretical differences are in place specifically to keep folks like you cheering on one side or the other, while they rob the bank with both hands.

A distraction, nothing more, nothing of substance.



At this point the issue isn't about gay/lesbian rights, abortion or religion yet that is 99% of what is being pushed by the RNC while the issue of corporations versus unions gets swept under the carpet, just like many other topics of outmost importance.


You're absolutely right - those "issues" are more mere distractions, to keep people thinking there is some kind of difference that isn't really present in the real world. On the issue of the Unions, however, I have to disagree. they have proclaimed themselves the "army" of the "left" - that's what Trumka said, anyhow, while calling the "right" "sonofabitches" (grammatically incorrect - it should have been "sons of bitches") to promote and foster that illusion of "difference", while declaring his solidarity with the new boss, same as the old boss. masterful stroke of work, and fooled a lot of people, eh?



Someone who avoids discussing a topic because it goes against his/her best interest is a filthy weasel! Don't take this personal, its meant for the weasels who know exactly what they are doing...THAT IS SCREWING AMERICA!


Take it personal? No way, dude! Weasels are some of the most efficient killers in the animal kingdom, pound for pound. If I took it at all, I'd take it as a compliment! I don't know that it applies to me personally, any how, and can't really tell if you meant for it to.

We're still buds, even if you don't wanna be!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Gee....lets see here. JFK a democrat elected to the white house who issued an executive order to dismantle the Federal Reserve, had a sincere interest in ufo disclosure, was against secret socities, etc.

Guess what. He wasn't killed be lee harvey oswald. The cia killed him. Why? Because he actually gave a # enough to openly speak about those things and tried to do something positive.



That's a matter of opinion. I could say that he was killed by the Secret Service on orders from LBJ to effect a coup, with as much evidence. But then that ain't really the topic of this thread. That conspiracy is a whole 'nuther thread - or a thousand.


I strongly disagree. Ronald Reagan almost got himself killed after talking about ufos at the UN.

Also lets not forget Abraham Lincoln getting killed not because of southern hatred but because he issued the greenbacks debt free.



Take it personal? No way, dude! Weasels are some of the most efficient killers in the animal kingdom, pound for pound. If I took it at all, I'd take it as a compliment! I don't know that it applies to me personally, any how, and can't really tell if you meant for it to.

We're still buds, even if you don't wanna be!


Just because we have different political ideologies does not mean I hate you. It simply means we disagree more than we agree.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 

You're right, there is no moral defense for what the republicans do now - which is why I left that party several years ago.

What I'm trying to point out is that there is no moral defense for what the democrats are doing, either. They are the right and left hands of the exact same body.

It hasn't been that long ago that Obama threatened the social security checks of old folks if he didn't get his way in DC, while at the same time championing bailouts for corporations, which is what you, rightly, accuse the republicans of also doing.

There is a difference in the rhetoric they both spew, but no difference at all in the results they actually strive for, when the rubber meets the road.


I know it feels so much easier to paint both sides as equally immoral, and while I agree that there is major corruption in the democratic party, I feel the same could be said about major corruption in the police departments, medical industry, religion, and various charitable organizations.

However, the chosen rhetoric used to attract voters for a particular party speaks volumes about that party... A party that would deny our impact on the environment, to speak against illegals, gays, muslims, and the unemployed as if they are the cause of our problems rather than groups in need of support. To suggest the most wealthy deserve tax cuts while suggesting those struggling do not deserve unemployment or welfare and suggesting teachers are lazy and deserving of pay cuts. To consistently embrace money over human efforts. Always too broke to help the needy, the poor, the unemployed... but never too broke to give more tax benefits to the wealthy. This is where Republicans have chosen their base to be one of ignorance and greed.

And before you say both are the same and that neither have a moral defense... Let's think about that...

To be attracted to a party that consistently favors protection of the environment and embraces cleaner energies like solar and wind; a party that openly displays empathy toward illegals, gays, muslims, sick, and unemployed... Not judging those in need, but empathizing with them. People who don't believe money and power is more important than the struggles of people in need or the health of the planet.

In point of fact, there are so many political issues openly supported by the democratic party that have a strong moral defense.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

In point of fact, there are so many political issues openly supported by the democratic party that have a strong moral defense.



Am I to take it then that you believe a "morality" without action, or worse yet and closer to the case, a "morality" with action contrary to profession, is somehow still a "moral" stance, just because they claim to walk a road paved with good intentions?

So it would be OK if I were to feed the homeless strychnine, because I'm at least feeding them, and eager to tell you how good I am by feeding the homeless? That would allow me to claim a higher moral ground than those openly saying "hell, let 'em starve if they won't work!"?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Another double post. I'm getting good at that!

edit on 2011/10/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I've had my experience with the unions too. Unions = Scumbag Trouble Makers (but like they say, don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my shoes) making them no different than Corporate America. As a matter of fact, I'm sure the corporations have learned a heck of a lot from the gangs...I mean unions. It's not the union workers I'm calling scumbags...it's their greedy scumbag leaders! Here's a few questions for anyone out there arguing unions/government is their friend(s):

Why do you all feel like you need some "organization" to set the bar for you?
Can you not speak for yourselves without them?
Do you really need somebody else to tell you what you're worth?

I understand the passion many have in this thread and I'm not trying to take that away, yet it seems so misguided and misdirected IMO. With all due respect, I just don't understand how anyone possibly believes that the Government/Unions cares about them. Has no one been paying attention to at least the past 50 years of US History/Government/Economics or Politics?


ETA
It's okay...I understand. I have nothing but time and I'll be around. Thanks for everything

edit on 10/2/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

Why do you all feel like you need some "organization" to set the bar for you?


Because unions serve the workers and corporations serve the stockholders.


Can you not speak for yourselves without them?


Not really. Corporations have waaayyyyy more influence than unions because they have more money to spend/lobby.


Do you really need somebody else to tell you what you're worth?


I guess your one of those folks that thinks its ok to have a $7.25 mw after obama raised it from $5.25 and with all kinds of loopholes at the state level to make sure there is plenty of trailer park"white trash" folks making the absolute bare minimum...........and that is in case there is a lack of mexicans showing interest.

Republicans themselves have stated government has NO business getting involved with anything...well almost anything except lots of tax breaks to corporations and wealthy white rich protestants. When it comes to unskilled labor these days you get treated worse than dirt!


I understand the passion many have in this thread and I'm not trying to take that away, yet it seems so misguided and misdirected IMO. With all due respect, I just don't understand how anyone possibly believes that the Government/Unions cares about them. Has no one been paying attention to at least the past 50 years of US History/Government/Economics or Politics?


From the way you post I doubt you understand anything. How is that glass cage of yours?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

Why do you all feel like you need some "organization" to set the bar for you?


Because unions serve the workers and corporations serve the stockholders.


Unions serve the unions. Union workers ALSO serve the unions - not the other way around. Corporations do indeed serve the stockholders - and themselves. No one can look after you like you can look after yourself. In the grand scheme of things, workers are just pawns of both corporations and unions if the workers themselves allow it - and it appears there is a very vocal minority that does.

Union workers are cannon fodder to enrich the financial and political goals of the top dawgs. Always have been, always will be. I personally think most people can see what's right in front of their faces there, and that's why union membership in the US is down to around 7 or 8% of "the working man".

We've got enough criminal organizations already - we don't need any more, and especially we don't need for them to be legalized via such travesties of justice as the 1973 Emmons ruling, which gives them immunity for their violent ways. How's that for "lobbying"?

Former Attorney General Ed Meese testified that the Emmons ruling “permits union officials--alone among corporate or associational officers in the United States--to use violence and threats of violence to life and property to achieve their goals.”

Note how he slipped up and admitted that union officials are ALSO "corporate officers". So then, you seem to be AGAINST corporations on the one hand, and FOR corporations on the other, based upon the political goals of the particular corporation in question, yet can't seem to see that NEITHER of them is "for" you, other than to employ you as cannon fodder and shock troops to achieve their own ends.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It seems in one breath you paint unions and corporations with the same corrupt brush and in the next breath you side with corporations while vilifying unions.

Let me see if I understand... Unions are all about themselves, and corporations are too, but unions should be dismantled and more money and power should be given to corporations.

We all know why they want unions out. -- So they can pay workers lower wages.

The party consistently against the working man. Again, proving my point.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


If unions were as powerful as Nenothu advocates the federal minimum wage would be around $20 an hour according to the vast increase in productivity due to automation since the 50's, except what we see is the same minimum wage barely adjusted for inflation.

Again not to mention all the loopholes states have come up with to avoid paying even $7.25/hour. The vilification of unions and the constant false dichotomy of small versus large government through the corporate media has become so prolific, that people have been brainwashed to accept a corrupt wall street is necessary for a healthy capitalist economy.

Sad times we live in, but we must win the good fight for the future of our children. The elite should fail!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It seems in one breath you paint unions and corporations with the same corrupt brush and in the next breath you side with corporations while vilifying unions.

Let me see if I understand... Unions are all about themselves, and corporations are too, but unions should be dismantled and more money and power should be given to corporations.


No.

Unions should be dismantled because they are dangerous. They are physically dangerous in that they promote violence to have a disproportional degree of power gathered to themselves, and don't care who gets in the way. They don't care if their victims have anything to do with "the company" or not. There are a variety of financial dangers they present, but I care a good deal less about those. I don't have to do business with them any more than I have to do business with corporations that won't deal fairly.

I'm not "siding with" corporations so much as just not caring about them. In all honesty, I'll soon probably not care about unions, either. I plan on soon relocating where they aren't a problem. the rest of you can self-destruct if that's your preference.



We all know why they want unions out. -- So they can pay workers lower wages.


I neither know nor care why "they" (presumably you mean corporations) want unions out. If you'll settle for lower wages, that's between you and them. I don't have to. There are other options available to any one.



The party consistently against the working man. Again, proving my point.


As I said above, unions DO NOT equate to "the working man". Union membership only amounts to around 7 or 8 percent of "the working man". The majority of that is unionized government workers. From where I stand, unions supporters are not for "the working man" they are for the government in it's ever widening quest for growth and self promotion.

In the words of Trumka himself "Mr. Obama, HERE is your army!"

NONE of them - union, corporation, or government - are for "the working man". They're all in it to line their own pockets and gather "power" at the expense of "the working man", and use him as cannon fodder to throw against the walls of the other groups.

If you want in on that, fine. Just allow me the option to opt out of any union schemes,and the legal right to shoot back with impunity, same as they have. Seems fair to me.

ETA: Both of those fellows I mentioned earlier in the thread were "the working man", too. I'm just not seeing how unions improved their lives by killing them.

Maybe I've got a strange notion of what constitutes "improvement"? One thing is sure - they don't have any worries any more. the same can't be said for the families they left behind. Maybe the UMWA should pay them a wergeld? I mean, it's all about a "living wage", right?




edit on 2011/10/3 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


If unions were as powerful as Nenothu advocates the federal minimum wage would be around $20 an hour according to the vast increase in productivity due to automation since the 50's, except what we see is the same minimum wage barely adjusted for inflation.


And if they're not as powerful, you're wasting your time fooling with them, because there's nothing they can do that you can't do for yourself. Why throw in your lot with the weak?



Again not to mention all the loopholes states have come up with to avoid paying even $7.25/hour. The vilification of unions and the constant false dichotomy of small versus large government through the corporate media has become so prolific, that people have been brainwashed to accept a corrupt wall street is necessary for a healthy capitalist economy.


Wall Street is a leech on the economy. They create and give nothing, they only siphon off what others create. Much like the government - and the unions.

How is the dichotomy between "big" and "little" a FALSE dichotomy? You somehow think they are the same thing?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


If unions were as powerful as Nenothu advocates the federal minimum wage would be around $20 an hour according to the vast increase in productivity due to automation since the 50's, except what we see is the same minimum wage barely adjusted for inflation.


And if they're not as powerful, you're wasting your time fooling with them, because there's nothing they can do that you can't do for yourself. Why throw in your lot with the weak?


Thats like living in southern california *gang-land* and refusing affiliation. Dumb move my friend! Sooner or later you will get shot or severly beat up and mobbed and tortured. The world is not what it appears to be on the surface. Jobs are not as plenty as they used to be and neither does the employer care about giving you fair work hours and fair compensation. Be a mexican out of gangs and you will scrounge a living, stay in gangs and you can extort a living just like the elite using the government.

I used the above example to show you why unions are important. No one man is a mountain. If the president cannot accomplish what he wants/needs with supposedly the highest position then what makes naive people think they can bargain for themselves?

I am pretty sure your ignorance is mediocre theater for the bored.




Again not to mention all the loopholes states have come up with to avoid paying even $7.25/hour. The vilification of unions and the constant false dichotomy of small versus large government through the corporate media has become so prolific, that people have been brainwashed to accept a corrupt wall street is necessary for a healthy capitalist economy.


Wall Street is a leech on the economy. They create and give nothing, they only siphon off what others create. Much like the government - and the unions.

How is the dichotomy between "big" and "little" a FALSE dichotomy? You somehow think they are the same thing?


The purpose of wall street was to raise capital for public companies and allow people to invest their money for profit. Capitalism is all about profit and there is nothing wrong with that. It provides the motivation that socialism and communism lacks. It encourages self responsilibility over group responsibility.

As the decades passed and with the growth of digital communications, wall street took a new form-one of virtually unlimited speculation being allowed with computer programs. It stopped being a tool of investment as leveraged buyouts, market deregulation and repeal of the glass-steagel act each added to the buidling chaos.

Big and small government means little when companies/banks pay for the elections and control the candidates. Is it really not obvious for you? Sure a "small government" means decisions get made faster and it costs less to run but we have a reached a point in human history were its become irrellevant. If you have a serious disease do you think about a headache? Is everything not relative?????
For a smart person you lack common sense.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Thats like living in southern california *gang-land* and refusing affiliation. Dumb move my friend! Sooner or later you will get shot or severly beat up and mobbed and tortured.


That right there is all that needs to be said about union affiliation. It is the best, most apt, analogy I have ever seen.


At least you realize that it's gang life when you enter the fray. I tip my hat to you.

more words of wisdom:



stay in gangs and you can extort a living just like the elite using the government.


I truly am glad that you can see it is extortion, and have no problems in admitting that.



I used the above example to show you why unions are important. No one man is a mountain. If the president cannot accomplish what he wants/needs with supposedly the highest position then what makes naive people think they can bargain for themselves?


I always have, and can't say it particularly troublesome. It's a simple matter not to settle for what they offer over what you want. I may not be a "mountain", nor am I an "island", but I know what I want, I know what I need, and I know what I won't just settle for. I don't need a gang behind me to tell me that, or help me walk away from a bad offer. I especially don't need them to "extort" on my behalf, or out of my paycheck.



I am pretty sure your ignorance is mediocre theater for the bored.


Entirely unlike your own, of course.




Big and small government means little when companies/banks pay for the elections and control the candidates. Is it really not obvious for you? Sure a "small government" means decisions get made faster and it costs less to run but we have a reached a point in human history were its become irrellevant.


"Big" and "small" in relation to government makes a great deal of difference. "Small" has much less of an octopus-like reach than the "big" advocated by collectivists. Cost analysis is not the only factor, nor is it really even the most important to me. Nor do I care how fast decisions are made - I care more about the fact that decisions are being made where none are needed, cutting deeply into that "personal responsibility" thing. A bigger government has to do more to perpetuate itself, and the more it does, the less freedom we have.

Was it Jefferson who said "a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have"? No matter who said it, the truth of that statement should be obvious to the most casual observer.

There are things more important than money and possessions. The economics of big government don't factor in to my thought process much.



For a smart person you lack common sense.


I thank you for the undeserved compliment, even if it was a bit on the left-handed side.





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join