Lifestyles of the rich and famous: Obscene wealth inequality at it's worst

page: 21
68
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


If I have gathered right, you are saying that because they are rich, they should not live how they wish but instead give up their wealth in the name of altruism and compassion? Am I getting that right?!


No. No you are not.





posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente

EarthCitizen07


INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946


www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm


I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.


Give me a break. Where did I ever say I support the federal reserve? You are trying to paint me as a socialist or like some kind of government lapdog when nothing could be further from the truth. I support the ideas behind libertarianism. I don't think the government should be poking its nose in peoples lives. But the problem is that corporations aren't individual citizens yet in the U.S they have been awarded the same rights. That seems ass backwards to me.


You have entirely missed the point and it makes sense because you do not want to face and reflect upon your self-contradiction.

I didn't say you supported the federal reserve, I said you are silent on government monopolies in the very thread you are advocating the government to tear down what they decide is a [supposedly] private monopoly.

If a government can't be trusted to avoid monopolies, how can they be trusted to break down other monopolies?


So if the government can't be trusted (which I think we can both agree on), who can be trusted to keep corporations in check? Will you at least agree that SOME regulation is needed?


What the heck, you're the one that has been advocating that government oversight is needed to break down monopolies, now you're admitting that the government can't be trusted like it is been your talking point this entire time. So which is it? which side of the story are you going with??

No, I'm not agreeing that even SOME regulation is needed, regulation comes in the form of self-governance and consumer triggered corporate behavior.

Your example of the 2008 crash happening solely because of deregulation is incorrect, yes the law that Clinton Admin allowed to repeal played a part (like the thousand other factors) but the bigger picture does not even BEGIN to be addressed and you seem to completely ignore that bigger picture. I also think that just goes to PROVE how you don't really understand what you are talking about.

In fact, the very reason why the banks were bailed out is because they HAVE protection from the government. More government mafia/thug tactics that you somehow refuse to address?

edit on 25-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

EarthCitizen07

eLPresidente

To answer your question, I don't believe in protectionism. You are advocating protectionism.


That right there means you like international capitalism. Protectionist measures are intended to protect the local economy. Without them what will stop any and all corporations that have enough capital from packing up and giving the finger to most american workers who supposedly demand too much compensation and benefits?

Now I can see why people hate minimum wage laws. They want to make usa equivilant to china, taiwan, india, north korea, etc. They want to lure business back to america by screwing the american workers, because apparently business is much more important than the workers.

This is quite immoral. I am suprised that you fail to see this.


What the heck is international capitalism????? Quit giving everything new labels, lol!

Its either capitalism or it isn't, I don't think that is too hard to get.

Seriously though, I'm glad you are 'more libertarian' now, because I remember you used to be a diehard advocate for socialism maybe within the last 6 months to less than a year, you've had a transformation. I'm pretty sure some of my libertarian/Ron Paul rants helped to change your mind too.

Protectionism is not free market capitalism, in fact it is detrimental to free markets and the economy. Here is one example of protectionism that has failed us miserably:

There is a tariff on cane sugar in USA, they are not allowed to compete on equal footing, enter GMO corn syrup/high fructose corn syrup sugar (which btw receives major subsidies by the federal government). Price of natural, wholesome cane sugar goes up, GMO sugar goes WAY WAY down, mass consumption of GMO ensues. Theres your beautiful protectionism all wrapped up in a neat little package.

As far as jobs go, yes America has been losing jobs to overseas wages that demand less (not preferable but understandable), jobs ALWAYS goes to the lowest bidder, if you were on eBay and you were bidding on something, YOU would bid on the lowest price too because that is the best choice for YOUR bottom line. Guess what? Jobs will eventually come back to the US because job seekers in the USA will lower their standards and demand LESS, wow can you imagine that!

And low and behold, manufacturing has started to come back to the US, don't even make me get started on how Texas' business friendly (pro-free market approach) has made them the most successful job producing state in the nation.

edit on 25-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   


What the heck, you're the one that has been advocating that government oversight is needed to break down monopolies, now you're admitting that the government can't be trusted like it is been your talking point this entire time. So which is it? which side of the story are you going with??
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Come on... I've admitted through this entire thread that corporations are in bed with corrupt government... The entire premise of the thread is that the system is broken and that there must be a better way. Your solution is to break it even more and yet I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?

It's like talking to a brick.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

DeadSeraph



What the heck, you're the one that has been advocating that government oversight is needed to break down monopolies, now you're admitting that the government can't be trusted like it is been your talking point this entire time. So which is it? which side of the story are you going with??
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Come on... I've admitted through this entire thread that corporations are in bed with corrupt government... The entire premise of the thread is that the system is broken and that there must be a better way. Your solution is to break it even more and yet I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?

It's like talking to a brick.


There is no proof of actual capitalism being broken, in fact every time government screws something up to the point of no return, capitalism somehow manages to provide alternative solutions and seemingly saves the day.

When you talk about big corporations like the railroads or oil tycoons that needed to be broken up, guess who helped put them there? no seriously, take a wild guess.

You have still yet to address the monopolization of the use of force of the federal government, the "do what I say or I will take you to jail" method. Again, I argue, why should government be trusted to break down monopolies when they have their own and the breaking down of their monopolies aren't even on the table?

You really don't seem to understand this. The US government was created to protect our rights, life, liberty, property, contracts, etc... As soon as they start protecting personal or corporate interests, or when people say nothing about the expansive powers that they give themselves, that is when you have problems like monopolies.

The issue needs to be addressed at the root, not with a bandaid like monopoly regulations.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

eLPresidente

What the heck is international capitalism????? Quit giving everything new labels, lol!

Its either capitalism or it isn't, I don't think that is too hard to get.


new labels? sure its capitalism but with no tariffs its exactly what it implies, international capitalism.

i guess national capitalism is what we had back in the 50s and 60s when american government actually protected its gross domestic product. it encouraged exports and discouraged imports. or at least they ballanced them out.


Seriously though, I'm glad you are 'more libertarian' now, because I remember you used to be a diehard advocate for socialism maybe within the last 6 months to less than a year, you've had a transformation. I'm pretty sure some of my libertarian/Ron Paul rants helped to change your mind too.


I do respect you and rand paul because you dont pitch the normal republican lines. its more traditional conservatism mixed in with some libertarian ideals. the mainstream republicans are the new conservaives hence neocons. have you heard of neocons before?



Protectionism is not free market capitalism, in fact it is detrimental to free markets and the economy. Here is one example of protectionism that has failed us miserably:


who said we need free markets? the neocons would be proud of you.


There is a tariff on cane sugar in USA, they are not allowed to compete on equal footing, enter GMO corn syrup/high fructose corn syrup sugar (which btw receives major subsidies by the federal government). Price of natural, wholesome cane sugar goes up, GMO sugar goes WAY WAY down, mass consumption of GMO ensues. Theres your beautiful protectionism all wrapped up in a neat little package.


Monsato is as evil as it gets and you picked a sneaky example to make your case. who says we need gmo anything? sugar cane is not growable in the usa so how can they protect american sugar cane? its not warm enough apparently.



As far as jobs go, yes America has been losing jobs to overseas wages that demand less (not preferable but understandable), jobs ALWAYS goes to the lowest bidder, if you were on eBay and you were bidding on something, YOU would bid on the lowest price too because that is the best choice for YOUR bottom line. Guess what? Jobs will eventually come back to the US because job seekers in the USA will lower their standards and demand LESS, wow can you imagine that!


yes from a business and consumer perspective what you say makes sense. however who will look out for the workers and give them some respect? I am not saying the workers are anymore special than business, I think they are equally important.

i hope they come back because the imports from china are too expensive after the american government hammers american business with crazy tariffs. or they can stay in china and sell their garbage to the yellow chinks.

I dont think there is any sense arguing with people like you. you see things with your conservative glasses on and I see things with my national socialist contact lenses on. neither of us is necessarily correct or wrong. we just have different approches.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07
yes from a business and consumer perspective what you say makes sense. however who will look out for the workers and give them some respect? I am not saying the workers are anymore special than business, I think they are equally important.

i hope they come back because the imports from china are too expensive after the american government hammers american business with crazy tariffs. or they can stay in china and sell their garbage to the yellow chinks.

I dont think there is any sense arguing with people like you. you see things with your conservative glasses on and I see things with my national socialist contact lenses on. neither of us is necessarily correct or wrong. we just have different approches.


Of course it makes sense, it has nothing to do with conservatism or socialism man, it only has to do with what makes economic and moral sense. It is logic, pure logic. I don't look at the world through "conservative glasses" I really don't know where you're getting that from. I may be fiscally conservative but who the hell isn't? Everyone is fiscally conservative when they have to be, and we sure as hell are not in a situation where we can be 'fiscally liberal' as the most indebted nation in world history.

Now I'm confused, at first you say you are now libertarian but now you call yourself a nationalistic socialist!? very confusing for me. There seems to be some identity mix up on your end??

As for who will look out for the workers? Please I hope you're not going to point to government as the answer. I think we've already established how much of a F-UP this government can be. Government can't fix wages and government can't fix the treatment and safety of employees. If anybody here bothers to go back to when workplace safety was established as law, they would see that the trend was already going in the direction of more safety vs less or stagnant.

I dont' think I need to say this again but it all boils down to ownership and rights. Who owns what and who has the RIGHTS to what. Surely nobody will attempt to say that the government owns anything that should NOT belong to them.

Like I said earlier, I don't care too much about the labels, its not about conservatism vs liberalism vs socialism to me. It is about ownership and morality. What my rights are, what your rights are, how are property rights protected, how rights are protected, and so on. Maybe if you can see it from that perspective, you'd get exactly where I'm coming from. Free markets may not be perfect, especially with government involved in the picture. But the least we can do is to abide by a moral and voluntary exchange of goods for services in a truly free market and not use a third party monopolization of force others to do the things WE think are good for them.

Try to argue "forcing other people to do things that we think may be good for them" in a logic/philosophy class and see what the professor says.

As for protectionism, no I did not pick a sneaky case, I simply gave you an example of protectionism that directly affects Americans. Tariffs are a form of protectionism and there is a tariff on cane sugar whether we grow it or not. Because of the artificial raising of prices on cane sugar, it is not able to compete directly with a subsidized GMO corn product. We are getting gmo sugar when we COULD be getting quality sugar. You said protectionism is necessary, and I made a case against it. What is wrong with that picture? There are plenty of ways for America to look out for their own interests without disrupting the free market, without implementing protectionist measures.


dude by the way, neoconservatism has almost nothing to do with free markets, I don't know where you got that idea from, it is pretty silly of you to say. Neoconservatism is very closely related to bush/cheney style of foreign policy world governance. Just thought I might let you know so that you don't link me or free markets to neoconservatism anymore.




edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

eLPresidente

Of course it makes sense, it has nothing to do with conservatism or socialism man, it only has to do with what makes economic and moral sense. It is logic, pure logic. I don't look at the world through "conservative glasses" I really don't know where you're getting that from. I may be fiscally conservative but who the hell isn't? Everyone is fiscally conservative when they have to be, and we sure as hell are not in a situation where we can be 'fiscally liberal' as the most indebted nation in world history.


Did you read my post on the federal reserve being a private corporation? The federal reserve was the one that loaned money(or so they say) to big business in terms of quantative easing. America itself is a corporation. The IMF and World Bank are corporations.


Now I'm confused, at first you say you are now libertarian but now you call yourself a nationalistic socialist!? very confusing for me. There seems to be some identity mix up on your end??


When did I ever say I was a libertarian? What is the definition of national socialism?


As for who will look out for the workers? Please I hope you're not going to point to government as the answer. I think we've already established how much of a F-UP this government can be. Government can't fix wages and government can't fix the treatment and safety of employees. If anybody here bothers to go back to when workplace safety was established as law, they would see that the trend was already going in the direction of more safety vs less or stagnant.


I dont trust neoliberals for beans. Why do conservatives ASSume that if you are not conservative then you somehow support Obama and his neoliberal administration? Didn't occupy protest for months in the streets AGAINST his administration?

Not every occupy supporter votes democrat and thinks in terms of wasted votes, much like not each tea party supporter votes republican. We vote third parties like constitution, green, libertarian, spusa, cpusa, justice, etc.



I dont' think I need to say this again but it all boils down to ownership and rights. Who owns what and who has the RIGHTS to what. Surely nobody will attempt to say that the government owns anything that should NOT belong to them.


So whats the role of government then? Its not about what government owns, its about government legislating and enforcing laws.


Like I said earlier, I don't care too much about the labels, its not about conservatism vs liberalism vs socialism to me. It is about ownership and morality. What my rights are, what your rights are, how are property rights protected, how rights are protected, and so on. Maybe if you can see it from that perspective, you'd get exactly where I'm coming from. Free markets may not be perfect, especially with government involved in the picture. But the least we can do is to abide by a moral and voluntary exchange of goods for services in a truly free market and not use a third party monopolization of force others to do the things WE think are good for them.


I dont support free markets regardless if its obama, bush, johnson, palin, anyone in office.


Try to argue "forcing other people to do things that we think may be good for them" in a logic/philosophy class and see what the professor says.


Again whats the role of government then? Its like a neutered dog that cant reproduce. He can be by the female all day and accomplish nothing. I am not saying we need stalin or hitler either, they were mass murdering criminals and its a strawman arguement every conservative makes to smear socialism. Capitalism has killed plenty of people as well fighting against the spread of communism and phoney religious wars.


As for protectionism, no I did not pick a sneaky case, I simply gave you an example of protectionism that directly affects Americans. Tariffs are a form of protectionism and there is a tariff on cane sugar whether we grow it or not. Because of the artificial raising of prices on cane sugar, it is not able to compete directly with a subsidized GMO corn product. We are getting gmo sugar when we COULD be getting quality sugar. You said protectionism is necessary, and I made a case against it.


So how exactly is "whether we grow it or not" a tariff? Tariffs are meant to discourage imports and help the local economy grow/produce the same item. I am not aware of any sugar cane being grown in the states and most of it comes from the carribean.

In other words its not really a tariff, its protectionism for gmo crops which monsato has its tentacles all over our government. Hillary clinton was a lawyer for that firm back in the days, or maybe she still is, I dont know.


What is wrong with that picture? There are plenty of ways for America to look out for their own interests without disrupting the free market, without implementing protectionist measures.


I honestly cant think of any other ways to bring business back to the usa and keep it here. It would also be nice for the chineese to be able to develop their own economy with chineese corporatism to compete with us.

Currently american and european countries have a stranglehold on the chineese economy. We are buying american merchandise made in china. Chineese brand stuff are called knock-offs like the cheap medicine you see advertised on the internet.


dude by the way, neoconservatism has almost nothing to do with free markets, I don't know where you got that idea from, it is pretty silly of you to say. Neoconservatism is very closely related to bush/cheney style of foreign policy world governance. Just thought I might let you know so that you don't link me or free markets to neoconservatism anymore.

edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


Well the only difference I see between traditional conservatives and new conservatives is that one wants wars in the middle east and the other seems not to. I guess another difference is that one wants a federal reserve and the other wants competing currencies and/or a gold standard. I dont know you guys confuse me.

If you dont like being linked to neocons, then please return the favor and stop ASSuming every centrist or leftist is an obamaNOID neoliberal robot. Both neoliberals and neoconservatives are globalist satanists as far as I can tell.
edit on 26/10/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: added a sentence



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You are kind of everywhere with your arguments. You get off-topic and start tossing around labels that have absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. You tried to link neoconservatism to free markets then link it back to me, I proved you wrong and you went on some neoliberal rant!?!? very confusing.

I feel you are Alex Jones in a lot of ways, you absorb good information and turn it into your own version of history and outlook of the world. Well intentioned but misguided, imo.


edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

EarthCitizen07

Did you read my post on the federal reserve being a private corporation? The federal reserve was the one that loaned money(or so they say) to big business in terms of quantative easing. America itself is a corporation. The IMF and World Bank are corporations.



I read it and already knew it, I also know that it is going off-topic so I don't bother to talk about how the USG is in fact a corporation. You need to understand commerce more. The fact that the USG is a corporation really doesn't have much to do with free markets, understand that.



When did I ever say I was a libertarian? What is the definition of national socialism?


I don't know man, a lot of what you said in earlier posts really had me fooled that you were libertarian leaning. It is quite funny, I googled national socialism and almost the entire first page was talking about Nazism and Nazi Germany. Have fun with your national socialism but it isn't for me.



I dont trust neoliberals for beans. Why do conservatives ASSume that if you are not conservative then you somehow support Obama and his neoliberal administration? Didn't occupy protest for months in the streets AGAINST his administration?

Not every occupy supporter votes democrat and thinks in terms of wasted votes, much like not each tea party supporter votes republican. We vote third parties like constitution, green, libertarian, spusa, cpusa, justice, etc.


I just addressed your question on workplace safety and you went on another off-topic rant. Seriously, what is the point of me conversing with you if you can't stay on topic????





So whats the role of government then? Its not about what government owns, its about government legislating and enforcing laws.


I just told you what the role of government is, it is the same role that we all should understand it to be. To PROTECT our rights. PROTECT life, liberty, property, and contracts.





I dont support free markets regardless if its obama, bush, johnson, palin, anyone in office.


As if any one of those names you just listed actually understand free markets. Actually, Johnson may but that is besides the point. Whatever you were responding to had absolutely nothing to do with any of those names, I don't know why you keep going off-topic and not just address my "RESPONSES TO YOU", directly.



Again whats the role of government then? Its like a neutered dog that cant reproduce. He can be by the female all day and accomplish nothing. I am not saying we need stalin or hitler either, they were mass murdering criminals and its a strawman arguement every conservative makes to smear socialism. Capitalism has killed plenty of people as well fighting against the spread of communism and phoney religious wars.


Take a second and read what I just wrote to you.


Try to argue "forcing other people to do things that we think may be good for them" in a logic/philosophy class and see what the professor says.


I mean, did you REALLY just respond with "again whats the role of government then?" REALLY? You are going to just sit there and say the role of government is to force people to do things they may not want to do? Where do they get the right to do that? Have you never heard of the Constitution? I'm sure you have.

Oh and, seriously, YOU brought up Hitler and Stalin, I didn't say anything about them, then you try to say that its a conservatism strawman argument, dude YOU brought it up!





So how exactly is "whether we grow it or not" a tariff? Tariffs are meant to discourage imports and help the local economy grow/produce the same item. I am not aware of any sugar cane being grown in the states and most of it comes from the carribean.

In other words its not really a tariff, its protectionism for gmo crops which monsato has its tentacles all over our government. Hillary clinton was a lawyer for that firm back in the days, or maybe she still is, I dont know.


Seriously? You want to keep sitting there and refusing to believe there is a cane sugar tariff? Why don't you just google it? This is a plain and simple fact. There is a tariff on cane sugar...........



I honestly cant think of any other ways to bring business back to the usa and keep it here. It would also be nice for the chineese to be able to develop their own economy with chineese corporatism to compete with us.

Currently american and european countries have a stranglehold on the chineese economy. We are buying american merchandise made in china. Chineese brand stuff are called knock-offs like the cheap medicine you see advertised on the internet.


I'm not quite convinced that you understand how economies, and more importantly, how market forces work. You don't have to think of ways to bring businesses back to USA and keep it here, that isn't the way it works. Businesses can be enticed to come back but nobody can force them to stay. You loosen business regulations and reduce corporate tax rate so businesses see coming back as VIABLE and CONVENIENT for their bottom line. What else can one do? Walk a business back to the USA with a knife to it's throat?




Well the only difference I see between traditional conservatives and new conservatives is that one wants wars in the middle east and the other seems not to. I guess another difference is that one wants a federal reserve and the other wants competing currencies and/or a gold standard. I dont know you guys confuse me.

If you dont like being linked to neocons, then please return the favor and stop ASSuming every centrist or leftist is an obamaNOID neoliberal robot. Both neoliberals and neoconservatives are globalist satanists as far as I can tell.


I just told you that you were wrong for linking free markets to neoconservatism. We're not talking about wars and the gold standard, it is simple neoconservatism and free markets aren't mutually exclusive in anyway, it is a horrible comparison to say the least. You are confusing yourself bro.

What the heck are you talking about Obamanoid? I never said that, I never said Centrist or leftist in this thread and I don't know where the heck globalist satanists came from but I sure as hell never talk about that either.

edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

eLPresidente
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You are kind of everywhere with your arguments. You get off-topic and start tossing around labels that have absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. You tried to link neoconservatism to free markets then link it back to me, I proved you wrong and you went on some neoliberal rant!?!? very confusing.


Why do you feel the need to limit the conversation to only a few talking points? Seems like a weakness imho!


I feel you are Alex Jones in a lot of ways, you absorb good information and turn it into your own version of history and outlook of the world. Well intentioned but misguided, imo.


edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


Alex Jones and David Icke are real patriots in the absolute fullest of sense. People who understand history both mainstream and alternative, have emotions, go on rants, infiltrate evil and expose it.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

eLPresidente

I read it and already knew it, I also know that it is going off-topic so I don't bother to talk about how the USG is in fact a corporation. You need to understand commerce more. The fact that the USG is a corporation really doesn't have much to do with free markets, understand that.


It has a lot to do with croney capitalism though. And croney capitalism is STILL capitalism, not socialism of any sorts.



I don't know man, a lot of what you said in earlier posts really had me fooled that you were libertarian leaning.


no but I am third party leaning though. 1st choice spusa, 2nd choice constitution party. both nationalist orientated to some extent. i am socially conservative and financially progressive.


It is quite funny, I googled national socialism and almost the entire first page was talking about Nazism and Nazi Germany.


yes lots of biased sources indeed. maybe you dont know that many countries during that epoch were national socialist and never attacked anyone. nazi germany and facist italy were the exception. spain, portugal, roumania, bulgaria, switzerland, austria and probably others never got involved in ww2 directly. they were nationalists first and socialists second.


Have fun with your national socialism but it isn't for me.


you are right. its not for international capitalists.



I just told you what the role of government is, it is the same role that we all should understand it to be. To PROTECT our rights. PROTECT life, liberty, property, and contracts.


its more than that.


Try to argue "forcing other people to do things that we think may be good for them" in a logic/philosophy class and see what the professor says.

I mean, did you REALLY just respond with "again whats the role of government then?" REALLY? You are going to just sit there and say the role of government is to force people to do things they may not want to do? Where do they get the right to do that? Have you never heard of the Constitution? I'm sure you have.


why insinuate anything about violating the constitution? where have i alluded to such behavior? take your arguments to obama and bush who do exactly that...violate the constitution.

government should legislate laws within constitutional bounds.

the role of government is to enforce the law. if people dont like the law then vote the scumbags out of office and vote in new people and new parties. its rather simple.


Oh and, seriously, YOU brought up Hitler and Stalin, I didn't say anything about them, then you try to say that its a conservatism strawman argument, dude YOU brought it up!


yep I sure did. anytime socialism gets mentioned people think of stalin and hitler, hence I debunked it pre-emptively.



Seriously? You want to keep sitting there and refusing to believe there is a cane sugar tariff? Why don't you just google it? This is a plain and simple fact. There is a tariff on cane sugar...........


and the purpose of this "tariff" is to push gmo sugar, not to protect local sugar production.



I'm not quite convinced that you understand how economies, and more importantly, how market forces work. You don't have to think of ways to bring businesses back to USA and keep it here, that isn't the way it works. Businesses can be enticed to come back but nobody can force them to stay. You loosen business regulations and reduce corporate tax rate so businesses see coming back as VIABLE and CONVENIENT for their bottom line. What else can one do? Walk a business back to the USA with a knife to it's throat?


if tariffs are high enough then they will have no choice but to come back. I am not sure how you can miss this point. Perhaps some laws can be loosened, taxation rates lowered, etc. Its carrot and stick analogy.

I dont want to destroy big business, I simply want them accountable for their actions and pay their share of taxes. Be responsible american entities just like most citizens are. And this will let other nations develop corporatism to compete with jewish-american interests.



I just told you that you were wrong for linking free markets to neoconservatism. We're not talking about wars and the gold standard, it is simple neoconservatism and free markets aren't mutually exclusive in anyway, it is a horrible comparison to say the least. You are confusing yourself bro.

What the heck are you talking about Obamanoid? I never said that, I never said Centrist or leftist in this thread and I don't know where the heck globalist satanists came from but I sure as hell never talk about that either.

edit on 26-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


You dont really get to define the discussion because it progresses naturally. Many things are interlinked at some point.

Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are global satanists and there is no denying this. Well unless one is a close-minded fool.
edit on 27/10/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: general edit



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


DeadSeraph,

Please see Naomi Klein's website for information about her upcoming work.

And see

How Science Is Telling Us All To Revolt


for some of her recent work.

And a vid on Wealth Distrubtuion in the USA:






new topics
top topics
 
68
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join