It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Colbert Superpac : If corporations are people, Romney is a serial killer

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


... they earned their money.

First, to determine if a person "earned their money" you have to actually observe them doing a job. Simply coming in to possession of resources doesn't mean it was earned. The mafia, for example, has plenty of money. I doubt anyone would claim it was "earned."



Originally posted by Xtraeme

So what? Capitalism ensures the best businessman wins. Most of the time, the best businessman is not always the most ethical one. For example: Thomas Edison vs Nikola Tesla. The former being much less intelligent and ethical than the latter, but is much more known for his business sense and skills than the latter. That is capitalism.


I find this comment interesting. So you're saying you would prefer a less intelligent person to have more money than someone who actually originated an idea simply because they have the capacity to be more underhanded? Wouldn't we make our country "more great" if we funneled the resources to the people who invent the transformative ideas that advance our society instead of giving it to those who swindle it away?


If Albert Einstein couldn't be hired as a theoretical physicist, do you think his brilliance entitles him to a job and success? Because, that is what Nikola Tesla believed. He believes because of his genius, he should be much more successful than the less intelligent Thomas Edison. Unfortunately for him, capitalism doesn't work that way. It rewards the best businessman, and that was clearly Thomas Edison.



Do you have a problem with the free-market principles that made this country great?


So basically by your own logic then free-market capitalism, as it currently exists, doesn't provide the most optimal outcome for our society. Yet you've asserted it's what makes this "country great." I think perhaps you're missing an explanatory sentence or two between these two ideas to form a complete thought. As it stands it's a non sequitur.
edit on 16-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I find it hilarious that the word "free" is used to counter any arguement when it comes to the US foreign or domestic policy.

"It's free trade, so it must be good!"

"It's a free market, and if you don't like a FREE market, you must be a socialist!"

"We must bring freedom to the middle east."

"The rest of the world hates our freedom!"



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


Romney is a slime ball who serves his masters and not the people of America.
What makes you think that were Romney to become president, his philosophy would change to serving the country and not his cronies?
In their deluded mind, they think what is good for Big Business is good for America.
Uh, yea, how is that working out?

Excuse me while I go puke!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Corporations are not "People", they are profit driven legal entitiies that are owned by people.

Money is not speech.

And...Government is not a Business..

Spend some time in 3rd world Africa and you can see what happens when the above is true.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I have not heard of one person either that cares for Romney.
From my Republican friends, he is another Necon Socialist like Obama in the pocket of the Big Banks.
From my Democrat Friends, he is a war monger and corporatist shill.

If he is elected, there will be no doubt how rigged our elections are!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
First, to determine if a person "earned their money" you have to actually observe them doing a job. Simply coming in to possession of resources doesn't mean it was earned. The mafia, for example, has plenty of money and I doubt anyone would say it was "earned."

The mafia earn their money through illegal means, while successful businessmen like Mitt Romney earned their wealth through perfectly legal avenues. Apples and oranges.



Originally posted by XtraemeSo basically by your own logic then capitalism, as it currently exists, doesn't provide the most optimal outcome for our society. Yet you've asserted it's what makes this "country great." I think perhaps you're missing an explanatory sentence or two between these two ideas to form a complete thought. As it stands it's a non sequitur.

No, just because it isn't the "fairest" system doesn't mean it isn't the most optimal. In a free market society, one's salary is not proportional to their contributions to society. For example, there are some very brilliant high energy physicists studying and researching the phenomena of antimatter at my university, yet they earn less as post-docs than plumbers who spend their days cleaning toilets, let alone the professional athletes that make millions by just entertaining a crowd. That is because there is a higher demand for people cleaning toilets or throwing hoops into a basket than for people researching antimatter. Yet those researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries. Most scientists are passionate about their field, and would work for very little if it had come down to it in order to do their work. So, in the end, everyone is happy.

That's why capitalism works and is the best system mankind has ever proposed thus far.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by dawnstarso they put their profits first, their people second....
pay them so little that their people end up running to the food stamp office so they can eat...
and then....
they gripe and complain when the gov't asks them for more money, so the slaves can be fed???

There is nothing wrong with that. If they want to have a decent lifestyle, then they should learn skills that are useful to an employer and retrain in a lucrative field. Corporations aren't forcing these people to work for them, so the fact you call them slaves just shows how much you hate the free market. Even Ron Paul would agree with this, and one of the few good things about him is he would abolish all corporate taxes.



Explain to me how it is a "Free Market" when every American except the ones at the top have to compete with everyone else in the world for Jobs.

We have tons of Legal people via H1B Visa's etc and Illegal people that enter this country, thus rigging the supply / demand ration toward business's favor, and as a consequence, wages goes down for everyone except them.

Tell me why we don't have tons of CEO's overseas coming in to take these jobs, thus lowering their compensation levels to that of the rest of the world?

I'll tell you why, because the Government Elite - CEO - Wall Street Criminals sit on each others boards keeping outsiders from entering their club, while everyone else has to succumb to the "Free Market" forces.

Yea, it is a dog eat dog world in their game, and here's to hoping they get on the receiving end of their game in the very near future, and at best, burn in hell when they die.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
So, in the end, everyone is happy.

That's why capitalism works and is the best system mankind has ever proposed thus far.




I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion when multiple people have explained how capitalism can be corrupted and turned into mutant capitalism or slash and burn capitalism. You're not making a case for capitalism your making a case for an Oligarchy.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
Do you realize the whole notion of "social responsibility" is communistic? Why not we make you socially responsible for your less fortunate fellow man and lets take your money to pay for their entitlements?


So you believe in continuing on the ME ME ME that riddles this "society" which is exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in?

Here's an idea, go live on a deserted island and you will not have to even live in a "society" then, and you can have everything to yourself.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
Just another Mitt Romney hater who attacks him benefiting from the free market. The business world is a dog-eat-dog world and is cruel. Corporations don't have feelings, and if they are weak and a smart businessman (Mitt Romney) buys them out and has to make some tough decisions that is normally perceived as unethical by the left, then so be it.

I am beginning to think those who attack Romney's business style and call him a "vulture capitalist" are really just liberals who mask themselves as conservatives.

Also, there is nothing wrong with having donations from large corporations in the business world. Romney made some strong business contacts and those donations are a result of his hard work and ingenuity in the private sector.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



Fitting screen name.

Then Romney it shall be....enjoy...we sure will.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


Yea, I noticed this same Diablo on another thread in support of Bombing Iran.
He is either a troll or the devil himself.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


Yet those researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries. Most scientists are passionate about their field, and would work for very little if it had come down to it in order to do their work. So, in the end, everyone is happy.


It's nice to know you speak for your entire university and all of the people who work there. Also you haven't actually addressed the point. Monetary systems don't make our "country great." The actual achievements of men like Tesla and Einstein are what transform our society. So if the reward mechanism is broken, what does that say about its ability to provide optimal results? Presupposing you'll reiterate that, "researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries." Then what does that say about the value of the free-market enterprise in the first place?
edit on 16-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion when multiple people have explained how capitalism can be corrupted and turned into mutant capitalism or slash and burn capitalism. You're not making a case for capitalism your making a case for an Oligarchy.

Wait a minute here, isn't Ron Paul for an unregulated free market? Isn't it one of the core libertarian principles to fight all regulations that work against the free market? You do realize Ron Paul is more pro-free market or "oligarchy" as you call it then any of other candidates and all of the "heartless" corporate executives on wall street?

Again, one of the few redeeming characteristics of Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraemeIt's nice to know you speak for your entire university and all of the people who work there. Also you haven't actually addressed the point. Monetary systems don't make our "country great." The actual achievements of men like Tesla and Einstein are what transform our society. So if the reward mechanism is broken, what does that say about its ability to provide optimal results? Presupposing you'll reiterate that, "researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries." Then what does that say about the value of the free-market enterprise in the first place?
edit on 16-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

I never said I spoke for my entire university. I'm just saying, after talking to these brilliant people and asking them why they put up with such low pay for such an intellectually demanding job and they genuinely told me it is because they love what they do and they would do it for free if no one was willing to pay them. They are even content they have any pay at all. I'm sure enlightened scientists like Einstein and Tesla feel the same way, and at least our society has institutions (universities) to pay these people to research phenomena with no immediate industrial application. If Einstein was being paid 20K or 100K, he still would have come to the same conclusions (photoelectric effect and relativity) because he absolutely loved what he did.

These researchers are paid relative to their demand. Seeing as demand for their research is extremely low (only done in universities) and the supply is extremely high (academia has been saturated with so many qualified people hoping to get a tenured position, but only very few get the coveted position while the rest do post-doc after post-doc), then they get paid exactly what they deserve.

What exactly do you propose? Is taking from other citizens in order to increase their pay the better choice, despite the fact that won't change much at all?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001So you believe in continuing on the ME ME ME that riddles this "society" which is exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in?

What is wrong with the "ME ME ME" mindset? I only care for myself and my family, I most certainly don't want to pay for the entitlements of some other person because of "social responsibility" just like corporations don't want to lose profits because of too many employees.


Originally posted by jacobe001Here's an idea, go live on a deserted island and you will not have to even live in a "society" then, and you can have everything to yourself.

How about you move to China and Cuba? After all, the governments of the countries are based on the ideology that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Based on your posts, you would fit perfectly in such a society, comrade.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by jacobe001So you believe in continuing on the ME ME ME that riddles this "society" which is exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in?

What is wrong with the "ME ME ME" mindset? I only care for myself and my family, I most certainly don't want to pay for the entitlements of some other person because of "social responsibility" just like corporations don't want to lose profits because of too many employees.


Originally posted by jacobe001Here's an idea, go live on a deserted island and you will not have to even live in a "society" then, and you can have everything to yourself.

How about you move to China and Cuba? After all, the governments of the countries are based on the ideology that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Based on your posts, you would fit perfectly in such a society, comrade.


Alrighty then.
We should go with the ME ME ME all the way then and disband the military.
Why should anyone fight and give their life for others?
That's socialist thinking where I am helping other's I do not even know.
Those whom have a beef with other countries should take some responsibility and go fight it themselves.
I'm not going to commit any of my family or friends to anything that would help the country militarily, economically or socially.
Right?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001Alrighty then.
We should go with the ME ME ME all the way then and disband the military.
Why should anyone fight and give their life for others?
That's socialist thinking where I am helping other's I do not even know.
Those whom have a beef with other countries should take some responsibility and go fight it themselves.
I'm not going to commit any of my family or friends to anything that would help the country militarily, economically or socially.
Right?

That is different, soldiers risk their lives to protect all of our freedoms, and I believe they aren't paid enough. I would be in favor in increasing their salaries (since they are dictated by the government) and slashing all other entitlements that are for the lazy and entitled.

Taxes should only go to being paid for defense and the military, nothing else. Once again, another thing Ron Paul would agree with me.

I'm assuming you're a Ron Paul supporter. How can you support such a socialistic and leftist notion such as "social responsibility" and yet support Ron Paul? It's like a die-hard conservative who is for small government supporting Stalin.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 





What is wrong with the "ME ME ME" mindset? I only care for myself and my family, I most certainly don't want to pay for the entitlements of some other person because of "social responsibility" just like corporations don't want to lose profits because of too many employees.



Is there a problem with being greedy, capitalistic, cold hearted? There is a reason why the most successful people on wall street are the most ruthless and cutthroat. Businesses have no moral obligation or social responsibility to the people, how can you not understand such a simple concept?


Spoken like a true tyrant, If all government were run with leaders on that mindset war would be constant and cooperation and treaties would be few and far between.
edit on 16-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: added quote



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Believes Corporations are people, Believes Corporations should not pay taxes




Much Much worse!



VOTE Ron Paul 2012
edit on 16-1-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join