Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... I don't suppose you would care to elaborate. Which of the above is a 'LIE'????
Where America's jobs went
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
LMAO.... I don't suppose you would care to elaborate. Which of the above is a 'LIE'????
Bfgrn
New member
Oh, now I see. The rights of the individual must submit to the collective in the business world. The law of the jungle is our business model. I guess conservatives have their own civics lessons (see Darwin). Thanks for reinforcing everything I believe conservatism is REALLY all about...the BIG guy crushing the little guy is 'efficient', so THAT is why you right wingers always defend the BIG guy over the little guy. Problem is, the little guy IS THE INDIVIDUAL, but don't let that deter your rhetoric.
Now I also understand why you right wingers are so dumb...there is no such thing as a 'free market'...all markets constructed. Ironically, the closest thing to a theoretical 'free market' is the local, community based economies that have been eviscerated by corporations. In a true community based economy, every person is a stakeholder. They all breath the same air, drink the same water, send their kids to the same schools, and share all community services and community responsibilities. Anyone who wants to try to get rich by making other people poor will be easily identified, ostracized and dealt with.
Central planning and the BIG conglomerates have shareholders, people who are not stakeholders in that local economy, so they don't have to breath the same air, drink the same water, send their kids to the same schools, and share all community services and community responsibilities.
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Moronic bullshit like the above is why so many people simply dismiss you as a quack. Where the fuck did you get that individuals must submit their rights in ANYTHING that I stated? Or is this just yet ANOTHER of your moronic straw man creations?
Yet ANOTHER straw man. You truly are fucking pathetic. Where in anything I stated did I say 'the big guy crushing the little guy is efficient'???? You fucking hack.
As I stated, EVERY single fucking BIG corporation started as a SMALL business. IT is the strength of their BUSINESS plans and product/service that allows the successful to grow and develop while those who do not possess good business models fail. A conservative supports BOTH. Apparently, if we use you as an example, liberals have no fucking clue how businesses are run.
You are truly a hack. Yes, in the strictest sense of the term a free market is completely unregulated. But that is NOT what people mean when they advocate a free market today. A Free Market advocate wants only those regulations that are necessary... ie... regulations that make sure there aren't glass shards in my meat etc... What we don't want is a regulation to be forced to put labels on cups of coffee saying 'this is hot moron... you could burn yourself if you spill it on yourself'.
In the terms of business, you again go to the standard liberal straw man of 'they want to get rich by making others poor'. WHO in the hell wants that? Give me one example. Just one. If corporations made everyone else poor, who the fuck would buy their products? NO ONE.
As for the rest of your claptrap.... what you are advocating is a return to businesses that ONLY deal within their local community????? That has to be the single DUMBEST thing stated since ditzies 1/3 fiasco.
Bfgrn
New member
Hey, you and Mr. scholastic have every right to your beliefs. Just don't try to claim you share any of the visions of our founding fathers. But, as we know, conservatives in 1776 were Tories, Redcoats and Lobsterbacks anyways.
The British East India Company was the fittest/strongest/most efficient company in colonial times. They could offer a very fine grade of tea at WalMart prices. But our founding fathers dressed up like indians and threw that tea in the Boston harbor. They were unwilling to let the BEI put the local, community merchants out of business.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Trying to divert the topic yet again? Ok, I will play along. My family came to this country in 1631. They lived in Maryland. They watched as the tyranny of the crown spread through the colonies. They fought in the Revolution. They fought because they did not believe in a centralized government (as you do). They fought because they didn't want monopolies like the British East India Company (yet you want a return of that mindset via Obamacare and eventual nationalization of health care overall). They fought because they didn't want taxation without representation. (yet you continue to want to redistribute wealth via taxation and to 'punish' those who dare be successful in the US)
LMAO.... you truly are warped.... now you compare Wal Mart to the East India Company? Your hackery knows no bounds. That is truly desperation on your part.
Bfgrn
New member
I will disassemble your Obamacare argument later, let's end your obfuscation ...please tell me why the colonists dumped the BEI tea in Boston harbor?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
taxation without representation was one of the main reasons.
Tell me....
Were the founding fathers FOR or AGAINST a centralized government?
Bfgrn
New member
Please tell me why the colonists dumped the BEI tea in Boston harbor? What specific action caused them to dump the tea?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If you wish for people to answer your questions, you should really attempt to respond in kind. You are yet again trying to spin this conversation.... but again I will play along, because you are going to be quite annoyed at how foolish your question makes you look.
The GOVERNMENT (ie... King of England) was trying to FORCE the people to BUY from the government favored Monopoly (East India Company). The government thought passing laws REQUIRING the colonies to buy only from EIC that would work. The Dutch India Company became black market, which the colonists used as it was cheaper than the government mandated monopolies tea. The government then gave EIC a tax break to put further pressure on the Dutch pricing models. That too didn't work and again, as I stated, it came right back to taxation without representation. The colonialists did not believe the government of England had the right to decide tax issues.
Bottom line... it was the centralized government trying to force a monopoly and taxes on the colonists that led to the Boston Tea Party. (two concepts YOU currently support)
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Now again, I ask YOU: Did our founding fathers prefer a centralized government or not?
Thanks for proving your economic ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt, Super Neo-con.
Read and learn;
http://www.americanpendulum.com/201...ory-with-the-assistance-of-the-us-government/
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do enlighten us oh wise one.... WHAT THE FUCK does the history of our banking system have to do with his question and my response regarding what led to the Boston Tea Party?
Please.... educate us oh wise Dune.
Obviously you didn't read the link, the real reason for the original Boston Tea Party is right there in the banking history.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I did read the link.... please oh wise one.... illuminate us poor souls.... what was the 'real reason' for the Boston Tea Party?
Bfgrn
New member
Wouldn't the British East India Company BE 'the fittest/strongest/most efficient company'? But our founders stood against it. If they were truly about the 'individual', then the 'individual' could buy the cheapest tea from the British East India Company,'the fittest/strongest/most efficient company'.
The colonists, however, were unswayed by the prospect of legal, affordable tea. Instead they invoked the specter of monopoly, insisting that the East India Company would soon grow too powerful to resist. Colonial merchants would be ruined, the company would tighten its grip on the marketplace, and average consumers would be left at the mercy of a mercantile leviathan. As one writer noted at that time:
The scheme appears too big with mischievous consequences and dangers to America, [even as we consider it only] as it may create a monopoly; or, as it may introduce a monster, too powerful for us to control, or contend with, and too rapacious and destructive, to be trusted, or even seen without horror, that may be able to devour every branch of our commerce, drain us of all our property and substance, and wantonly leave us to perish by thousands.1
Such complaints carried the day. Rather than settling down with a nice cheap cuppa, agitators found their way to Griffin's Wharf, boarded the tea ships, and tossed the imported Bohea overboard.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What part of GOVERNMENT allowed MONOPOLY are you failing to comprehend? When the government picks the winners and losers (similar to what happened in our recent financial market melt down) the people LOSE.
The second glaring error in the above is the FACT that the British East India Company was NOT the most efficient... they were struggling in their competition with the Dutch. They were losing ground. So the government in England decided to stack the deck in favor of the British over the Dutch by MANDATING (ie... BIG GOVERNMENT) that the colonists buy from the British and by SUBSIDIZING (ie... government intervention in the markets) the British East India Company.
Your cherry picking of comments is duly noted... The PRECEDING two paragraphs to the above:
So tell us genius... how can you proclaim the British EIC was the most efficient/strongest/fittest company when in reality they required a government BAILOUT????
Bfgrn
New member
So tell us genius, how can WalMart be the most efficient/strongest/fittest company when in reality they required a government BAILOUT????
According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees.
In the END, the BEI Co. was the most efficient/strongest/fittest company. They were able to use their leverage and size to end up with the lowest price on tea.
But what you fail to acknowledge; the founders did not put the lowest price ahead of protecting their local, community based economies.
Our founding fathers did NOT support or subscribe to what is YOUR description of conservatives.
They weren't fine with big business or whomever survived, they PICKED THEIR winners...the local merchants and their community based economies.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
You're doing great Superfreak.
They're not here to answer questions.
They don't have the ability to back up what they think.