Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

reply to post by macman


Paris Hilton is just a good example of the many trust fund babies living high off the hog of the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super rich, proving my earlier statement.

Sorry that you don't like the evidence, but doesn't change that I am right.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman

 

Really, so you do not believe in deregulation?

Seems a great many of your posts clearly support deregulation of business.

A SWEEPING deregulation is not what I have EVER stated. You and Immaculated sure run fast and loose with the BS you both pitch.

But, limited and smaller Govt? I am all for that.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman

 

Paris Hilton is just a good example of the many trust fund babies living high off the hog of the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super rich, proving my earlier statement.

Sorry that you don't like the evidence, but doesn't change that I am right.

What evidence?
Who cares what she has. It is not your nor my business.

You carry too much Envy of others. That is your problem.

reply to post by macman


You have a serious problem answering questions.

I don't know what you mean by sweeping deregulation, but it sounds like a dodge to admit what we all know is true, that you support deregulation.

reply to post by poet1b


No, you just don't like the answer.

Sweeping means everything.
Good lord, I think a 10 year old could figure that out.

Don't throw a tantrum because I did not give you the answer you wanted.

I don't think sweeping deregulation is needed.
I think limiting Govt and reducing it's influence and abilities is needed.

reply to post by macman


I didn't ask you if you supported sweeping deregulation, cause by your definition, that would mean eliminating all laws.

I asked you if you supported deregulation.

I didn't ask if you were for smaller government. Everyone is for smaller government.

Do you believe in free market economics?

Can you admit the truth about your political beliefs?

Originally posted by poet1b


I didn't ask you if you supported sweeping deregulation, cause by your definition, that would mean eliminating all laws.

I asked you if you supported deregulation.

I support deregulating certain areas and aspects.

Originally posted by poet1b

I didn't ask if you were for smaller government. Everyone is for smaller government.

Um, no. Many many others here have provided statements that show otherwise.
Govt controlling more, is by definition bigger Govt.

Originally posted by poet1b
Do you believe in free market economics?

Yes.

Originally posted by poet1b
Can you admit the truth about your political beliefs?

Already been stated. Don't be lazy.

reply to post by macman


Yeah, I know your position on deregulation, and I don't see a big difference between your opinion and the former GW admins approach to deregulation, and the support of free market strategies.

The political position is that government should not interfere with business activities that violate the rights of the individual.

Pollution laws, labor laws, laws that restrict bank policies, ect..

What we get from these policies that the GW admin favored is a dysfunctional economy that leads to economic collapse due to fraudulent business practices.

At some point in time you might want to admit that what free market policies are supposed to do, and what actually happens, are two different things.

What we are getting is an extremely wealthy class of individuals who are able to undermine representative government, and philosophies that the U.S. was founded upon. We have a class of people who are being enabled to operate above the law, and continued free market policies are making a bad situation worse. Too many Paris Hiltons out there wielding far too much power.

Originally posted by poet1b


Yeah, I know your position on deregulation,

You DO?!?!
Really????

Oh please, do tell.

Originally posted by poet1b
I don't see a big difference between your opinion and the former GW admins approach to deregulation, and the support of free market strategies.

Oh really???
Do please explain my deregulation as opposed to the Bush era.

Originally posted by poet1b
The political position is that government should not interfere with business activities that violate the rights of the individual.

Yes.

Originally posted by poet1b
Pollution laws, labor laws, laws that restrict bank policies, ect..

And what is my stance on these again?

Originally posted by poet1b
What we get from these policies that the GW admin favored is a dysfunctional economy that leads to economic collapse due to fraudulent business practices.

Really? Bush forced those CEOs and Companies to cook the books, like MCI?
How could he do that, he was too busy planning the destruction of the New Orleans Levies.

Originally posted by poet1b
At some point in time you might want to admit that what free market policies are supposed to do, and what actually happens, are two different things.

When the Govt interferes when it has no business, then yes, there are two different things.

Originally posted by poet1b
What we are getting is an extremely wealthy class of individuals who are able to undermine representative government, and philosophies that the U.S. was founded upon.

You mean, the ability to corrupt the innocent Andy Griffith type politician, that is as pure as the winter snow in Alaska?

Originally posted by poet1b
We have a class of people who are being enabled to operate above the law, and continued free market policies are making a bad situation worse.

The Govt and Politicians make the law. The businesses do not.

Originally posted by poet1b
Too many Paris Hiltons out there wielding far too much power.

Well, you go get her then. Maybe do it under the NDAA or Battle Field Act.

Too much Envy, and not enough focus on yourself.

reply to post by macman

Originally posted by poet1b

The political position is that government should not interfere with business activities that violate the rights of the individual.

Reply by macman

Yes.

So you are admitting here that you agree with this position that the GW admin, and most conservatives, hold. Thanks for proving my point.

Really? Bush forced those CEOs and Companies to cook the books, like MCI?

Yeah, they had to be forced to steal large sums of money, because all these corporations are ran by Andy Griffith types.

Or, the super rich keep the Any Griffith or Jimmy Stewart/George Bailey types out of office.

Personally, I think you are a smart guy and know that the whole free market approach is a failure, you just can't admit it to yourself yet.

Originally posted by poet1b


So you are admitting here that you agree with this position that the GW admin, and most conservatives, hold. Thanks for proving my point.

Never said I agreed with Bush. The only thing proven is that you assume and don't read.

Originally posted by poet1b

Yeah, they had to be forced to steal large sums of money, because all these corporations are ran by Andy Griffith types.


Or, the super rich keep the Any Griffith or Jimmy Stewart/George Bailey types out of office.

The companies worked within the confines of the current law. Hurray for more Govt though.

Originally posted by poet1b
Personally, I think you are a smart guy and know that the whole free market approach is a failure, you just can't admit it to yourself yet.

Nope, dumb as a box of rocks.
That is the only reason why you keep getting spun around and retorting that I agree with Bush, yet have no proof.

The free market has not been free for a LONG time now.

The free market would have allowed the banks and companies to fail.
The free market would have rode out the housing issue, and corrected itself by now.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Originally posted by macman


But, limited and smaller Govt? I am all for that.

OK... What does that mean?

You can say the Constitution, but that does nothing to describe size, explain.

And also, please tell me which modern president you think had this equation right,
so I know you are not just talking fantasy.

Originally posted by macman

Nope, dumb as a box of rocks.
That is the only reason why you keep getting spun around and retorting that I agree with Bush, yet have no proof.

The free market has not been free for a LONG time now.

The free market would have allowed the banks and companies to fail.
The free market would have rode out the housing issue, and corrected itself by now.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Ya and letting the wealth of half of American disappear would have be good how?

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman


But, limited and smaller Govt? I am all for that.

OK... What does that mean?

You can say the Constitution, but that does nothing to describe size, explain.

And also, please tell me which modern president you think had this equation right,
so I know you are not just talking fantasy.

edit on 20-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Without getting into a long winded retort, retracting the Govt involvement in many aspects.
First, stop the crap of Nation Building/Rebuilding. If a nation flexes its muscle at us, and has the means to back it up, scorched earth and move on to the next item of the day.
Complete either the flat tax or fair fax, abolish the IRS. FOR EVERYONE, even businesses.
Return Education back to the States, where it belongs, abolish the Failed Department of Un-Education.
Stop aid to foreign countries, at the very least until our budget is balanced.
Balance the budget, every year.
Abolish the DEA and legalize Marijuana. If people want to pollute their body, it is their right to do so.
Scale back Social programs and handouts. 6 months on all benefits.
Stop bailing out banks and GM. If they can't operate as they are correctly structured, then they either fail or restructure.
Bring back the Gold standard, end the Federal Reserve.
March 0bama, Geithner, Napolitano, Frank and others into criminal proceedings.

As for the President that this falls under, none really.
JFK kind of, Regan a little bit.
Ron Paul is the best choice as of late.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Nope, dumb as a box of rocks.
That is the only reason why you keep getting spun around and retorting that I agree with Bush, yet have no proof.

The free market has not been free for a LONG time now.

The free market would have allowed the banks and companies to fail.
The free market would have rode out the housing issue, and corrected itself by now.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Ya and letting the wealth of half of American disappear would have be good how?

Disappear into the Abyss?
Where would it go?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Nope, dumb as a box of rocks.
That is the only reason why you keep getting spun around and retorting that I agree with Bush, yet have no proof.

The free market has not been free for a LONG time now.

The free market would have allowed the banks and companies to fail.
The free market would have rode out the housing issue, and corrected itself by now.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Ya and letting the wealth of half of American disappear would have be good how?

Disappear into the Abyss?
Where would it go?

You understand that banks are financed with depositors money?

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Nope, dumb as a box of rocks.
That is the only reason why you keep getting spun around and retorting that I agree with Bush, yet have no proof.

The free market has not been free for a LONG time now.

The free market would have allowed the banks and companies to fail.
The free market would have rode out the housing issue, and corrected itself by now.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Ya and letting the wealth of half of American disappear would have be good how?

Disappear into the Abyss?
Where would it go?

You understand that banks are financed with depositors money?

Yes, and your point being what?

reply to post by macman


I am not assuming anything, I am stating an opinion based on numerous discussions that we have had. You still cling to the notion that there is such a thing as a free market, and do not think the fed gov should do its job as directed by the U.S. Constitution of protecting the rights of individuals when it comes to protection of peoples rights against corporate and big institutional abuse.

Actually those companies did not work within the confines of the law, which is why several of these companies are being charged with crimes and or are under investigation.

So, there really is no real free market now.

Sadly. I get the idea of the concept of the free market, I just don't think it could ever be done, especially not with all these giant institutions.

The people who advocate "free market" are dellusional to the extreme. It is like saying lets play basketball, football, soccer, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis WITHOUT RULES! No referres either. Basically anyone can play as dirty as they want and they win by intimidation.

The same thing applies to business and labor relations. No rules and business wins since by nature they have the upper hand. We might as well not have government either or just degrade it to department of justice as all the libertarians want.

USA government equals DOJ! Now that would be something to behold and everyone rightfully would be laughing/crying their socks off. Indeed it is dumb as a box of rocks as McMan said for all the wrong reasons.

Just because the government has been infiltrated by big business does not invalidate its position. It simply means it has been corrupted and needs to become uncorrupted. Like going down into a ship's bildge and removing the filth.

Originally posted by macman

Ron Paul is the best choice as of late.

Donald Rumsfeld would not be a bad candidate either. Someone who has the guts to call a spade a spade deserves all my respect regardless of political affiliation. $2.3 TRILLION MISSING is 2,300 billions is 2,300,000 million.

Just saying......