More social conservatism at its best

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Jarod said:
Personally, I am much more okay with government regulations that limit actions of corporations than I am with limitations on the actions of individuals.

I find that Conservatives are much more likely to want to limit the freedoms of individuals while Liberals are more likely to want to limit the powers of corporations.

Which is more of a nanny state... Regulating your marriage or McDonalds Marketing tactics?
Click to expand...

The thing of it is, the limit to corporations is just another way to limit individuals. They don't believe that individuals are smart enough to overcome marketing techniques, so they try to protect you by passing laws they believe will effect how you act so that you will follow their more enlightened idea of what you should be doing. There's no victim when somebody chooses to eat a burger any more than there is when somebody chooses to take drugs. It's their choice. The idea that parents can't make choices like this because they are "too stupid" to see things like they do is what drives this kind of legislation.

IMO, both are equal. One tries to save a soul, the other tries to protect you from yourself. Both are bad laws.
 
Damocles said:
The thing of it is, the limit to corporations is just another way to limit individuals. They don't believe that individuals are smart enough to overcome marketing techniques, so they try to protect you by passing laws they believe will effect how you act so that you will follow their more enlightened idea of what you should be doing. There's no victim when somebody chooses to eat a burger any more than there is when somebody chooses to take drugs. It's their choice. The idea that parents can't make choices like this because they are "too stupid" to see things like they do is what drives this kind of legislation.

IMO, both are equal. One tries to save a soul, the other tries to protect you from yourself. Both are bad laws.
Click to expand...

do you agree with the law banning subliminal messages in advertising they used in the 50's or 60's....i believe?
 
Yurt said:
do you agree with the law banning subliminal messages in advertising they used in the 50's or 60's....i believe?
Click to expand...

In that case one wasn't making a conscious decision to view the advertising, or to allow their children to view the advertising. It makes sense at that time. In this case there was a victim, you were subjected to something rather than made a direct choice to view it. McDonald's isn't making you a victim because you take your kid there to eat a burger.
 
Jarod said:
I find that Conservatives are much more likely to want to limit the freedoms of individuals while Liberals are more likely to want to limit the powers of corporations.
Click to expand...
until it comes to the right to bear arms. then the majority of liberals want to erase the 2nd Amendment, the memory of the 2nd Amendment, and anything to do with citizens being able to own weapons.
 
Damocles said:
The thing of it is, the limit to corporations is just another way to limit individuals. They don't believe that individuals are smart enough to overcome marketing techniques, so they try to protect you by passing laws they believe will effect how you act so that you will follow their more enlightened idea of what you should be doing. There's no victim when somebody chooses to eat a burger any more than there is when somebody chooses to take drugs. It's their choice. The idea that parents can't make choices like this because they are "too stupid" to see things like they do is what drives this kind of legislation.

IMO, both are equal. One tries to save a soul, the other tries to protect you from yourself. Both are bad laws.
Click to expand...

Is there a victim when an individual eats a burger with salmonella? Or should an individual just be smart enough to be able to know the food is contaminated and choose not to eat it? You have a total misunderstanding of the intent of government regulation.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
until it comes to the right to bear arms. then the majority of liberals want to erase the 2nd Amendment, the memory of the 2nd Amendment, and anything to do with citizens being able to own weapons.
Click to expand...

You continue to prove you have a polarized mind. EVERYTHING with you is always ALL or NONE, BLACK or WHITE. I strongly suggest you see a psychiatrist.
 
Bfgrn said:
You continue to prove you have a polarized mind. EVERYTHING with you is always ALL or NONE, BLACK or WHITE. I strongly suggest you see a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...

i strongly suggest you move to england. they have a nanny government more to your liking. as for me, i'd like to see this country finally acknowledge the constitution as it is written, instead of ignoring it for their own ideals.
 
Bfgrn said:
WHY do you think our economy crashed and burned? It is directly tied to deregulation and lax enforcement of existing regulations.
Click to expand...

then why did you let barney frank off the hook?

also, provide the cite for your 'direct' link to deregulation and lax enforcement as the cause of our current economic crisis.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then why did you let barney frank off the hook?

also, provide the cite for your 'direct' link to deregulation and lax enforcement as the cause of our current economic crisis.
Click to expand...

Ah, the faux news right wing Barney Frank ignorance. You are a brainwashed idiot.

Panel blames deregulation for financial crisis

WASHINGTON — A deeply divided U.S. investigative panel issued a scathing critique of the culture of deregulation championed by Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, saying the government had ample power to avert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and chose not to use it.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's final report

Greenspan -- Flawed Ideology, Deregulation Cause of Collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Only a Factor

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, long considered the icon of Free Market capitalism, testified yesterday before the House Oversight Committee on the causes of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Committee members, led by chairman Henry Waxman asked the 82 year old Greenspan a series of tough questions in an attempt to isolate "regulatory mistakes and misjudgments" leading up to the collapse. The result was a number of era-defining statements by Greenspan revealing the flaws of absolutist Free-Market capitalism and irresponsible deregulation of the financial system.

Flawed Ideology Enables Systemic Failure

Greenspan noted that he had made a mistake in believing that banks would be rationally compelled, through self-interest, to protect their institutions and shareholders. This belief is a key foundation of free-market capitalist ideology -- that individuals will act rationally to pursue their own self interest and that financial institutions would magnify this rational thought to result in long-term economic growth and increasing general prosperity. What ended up happening, instead, is that both individuals and institutions ignored severe risk in order to pursue massive short-term gains. In this sense, rational self interest rapidly turned into irrational greed. While a few individuals who had gained access and control of key institutions were enriching themselves, the rest of the economic system was isolated, neglected, and suffered increasingly severe strains and failures. Furthermore, private-backed predatory lending exploited the vehicle of sub-prime mortgages and rapidly toxified a massive segment of the international financial system. Greenspan described these failures as resulting from "a flaw in the model... that defines how the world works."
 
Bfgrn said:
Greenspan noted that he had made a mistake in believing that banks would be rationally compelled, through self-interest, to protect their institutions and shareholders. This belief is a key foundation of free-market capitalist ideology -- that individuals will act rationally to pursue their own self interest and that financial institutions would magnify this rational thought to result in long-term economic growth and increasing general prosperity. What ended up happening, instead, is that both individuals and institutions ignored severe risk in order to pursue massive short-term gains. In this sense, rational self interest rapidly turned into irrational greed. While a few individuals who had gained access and control of key institutions were enriching themselves, the rest of the economic system was isolated, neglected, and suffered increasingly severe strains and failures. Furthermore, private-backed predatory lending exploited the vehicle of sub-prime mortgages and rapidly toxified a massive segment of the international financial system. Greenspan described these failures as resulting from "a flaw in the model... that defines how the world works."
Click to expand...
and this is where you show yourself to be a total ignoramus. WE Libertarians urged you retards not to bail out the banks, but YOU and every other partisan idiot not only agreed with the too big to fail message, you bolstered the banks confidence that they can continue to operate in the risky manner that they have been because you state your argument in terms of the economy being much much worse had you NOT bailed them out. YOU have made us slaves to the very corporations you say you hate.
 
Bfgrn said:
Is there a victim when an individual eats a burger with salmonella? Or should an individual just be smart enough to be able to know the food is contaminated and choose not to eat it? You have a total misunderstanding of the intent of government regulation.
Click to expand...

What has that to do with the SF law to limit toys? The current war on fat is driving stupid legislation rather than education. People aren't smart enough to know what is good for them, but people like you are.

Ironically, you have a misunderstanding of the current conversation, jump in late and spout off about something that isn't part of the conversation. Try to keep up, I know that written word is "spoken" too quickly for you sometimes...
 
Right about now Bfgrn's thinking that those SF City Councilpersons must have had a conservative moment to pass a dumb law.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and this is where you show yourself to be a total ignoramus. WE Libertarians urged you retards not to bail out the banks, but YOU and every other partisan idiot not only agreed with the too big to fail message, you bolstered the banks confidence that they can continue to operate in the risky manner that they have been because you state your argument in terms of the economy being much much worse had you NOT bailed them out. YOU have made us slaves to the very corporations you say you hate.
Click to expand...

Actually, an ignoramus is someone who would throw out the baby with the bath water and create a much bigger disaster for everyone. NO liberal or Democrat agreed to Bush/Paulson's TARP without holding their nose. But had monetary security institutions like AIG been allowed to fail, it would have wiped out every American's 401k, retirement account and savings.

But you right wing zealots are really big on punishment, even if you punish innocent Americans.
 
Bfgrn said:
Actually, an ignoramus is someone who would throw out the baby with the bath water and create a much bigger disaster for everyone. NO liberal or Democrat agreed to Bush/Paulson's TARP without holding their nose. But had monetary security institutions like AIG been allowed to fail, it would have wiped out every American's 401k, retirement account and savings.

But you right wing zealots are really big on punishment, even if you punish innocent Americans.
Click to expand...
at least you admit your idiocy and the validity of your stupidity. and making my argument valid. if only you could learn from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top