Class War Illustrated

[kaz]

I have to admit you're right that on the Left you are classless. Good demonstration of that here.

 

[MitchMan]

JarHead, you are right, I do need to curb my rhetoric. I am just a little pissed, but that is not a sufficient excuse. Mia culpa.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfye, I fundamentally disagree with you. My opionon is that you seem to think that the government is a boogey man, this entity that has a life of its own, bad and corrupt by nature and inclination, as though it is a genetic thing without any cure possible. I disagree with that completely. I haven't given up on democracy, I believe in democracy, but I can only conclude that you don't think that democracy works. But, a successul democracy requires work by the electorate. It requires an electorate that pays attention and votes intelligently and from an accurately informed position. That isn't always a given, I will admit. Your fatalistic view of government (which is the primary creation of our democracy), the most successful democracy in history, is that business would be a better governor of the people? Well, with all the freedom and tax breaks our polititions have given big business since and beginning with Reagan, how has big business been doing for the bottom 85%? the Bottom 60%, the bottom 40%?

There are good people out there, capable people, dedicated people, moral people, but we need to vote for them, not others. We as a people have been asleep at the wheel. With the effective permission of the American public, we have allowed big business to infiltrate the government and the political process. The insistance of the right wing that believes in unbridled lack of regulation, that anything that business wants is what the country needs is a giant mistake. It directly led to the recent economic recession, the .com bubble, and the S&L debacle. The right wingers were duped (and continue to be so) even as we witness the fall out of such folly. Don't get me wrong, there are many Democrat polititions and a couple of Democrat presidents that contributed directly to the mess as well.

BTW, trusting big business is what has gotten us into this recession. It was republicans that are to blame for the most part, not just because it happened on their watch, it is because of there abrogration of the true role of government to govern, but instead they let big business have their way. The Supreme Court has made it much worse with their recent ruling.

A huge fix to the successful buyout of the polititions by big business is to reverse the Supreme Court ruling, pull back and restrict the lobbyists, dissallow any retiring congressman from becoming a lobbyist, greatly curb all contributions by all big business and from lobbyists (corps are not people/person - they have no soul and the only motive is a self interest and profit motive - mercenary that is- not appropriate motivation for supporting elected officials to be), and analyze and appropriately restrict future income from big business to retiring politicians. Direct Personal Monetary benefits from business should not be a motive either in appearance or in fact for an elected official.

Lastly, we the people have to do a better job as voters, much better.

Government is not a boogey man unless we give government powers that it was never intended to have. You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom.

I say restrict the government to its constitutional responsibility to secure and defend the rights of the people, and almost ALL of that other stuff would no longer be a problem.

 

[kaz]

You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom...

When you only have a hammer...

 

[sinister59]

Foxfye, I fundamentally disagree with you. My opionon is that you seem to think that the government is a boogey man, this entity that has a life of its own, bad and corrupt by nature and inclination, as though it is a genetic thing without any cure possible. I disagree with that completely. I haven't given up on democracy, I believe in democracy, but I can only conclude that you don't think that democracy works. But, a successul democracy requires work by the electorate. It requires an electorate that pays attention and votes intelligently and from an accurately informed position. That isn't always a given, I will admit. Your fatalistic view of government (which is the primary creation of our democracy), the most successful democracy in history, is that business would be a better governor of the people? Well, with all the freedom and tax breaks our polititions have given big business since and beginning with Reagan, how has big business been doing for the bottom 85%? the Bottom 60%, the bottom 40%?

There are good people out there, capable people, dedicated people, moral people, but we need to vote for them, not others. We as a people have been asleep at the wheel. With the effective permission of the American public, we have allowed big business to infiltrate the government and the political process. The insistance of the right wing that believes in unbridled lack of regulation, that anything that business wants is what the country needs is a giant mistake. It directly led to the recent economic recession, the .com bubble, and the S&L debacle. The right wingers were duped (and continue to be so) even as we witness the fall out of such folly. Don't get me wrong, there are many Democrat polititions and a couple of Democrat presidents that contributed directly to the mess as well.

BTW, trusting big business is what has gotten us into this recession. It was republicans that are to blame for the most part, not just because it happened on their watch, it is because of there abrogration of the true role of government to govern, but instead they let big business have their way. The Supreme Court has made it much worse with their recent ruling.

A huge fix to the successful buyout of the polititions by big business is to reverse the Supreme Court ruling, pull back and restrict the lobbyists, dissallow any retiring congressman from becoming a lobbyist, greatly curb all contributions by all big business and from lobbyists (corps are not people/person - they have no soul and the only motive is a self interest and profit motive - mercenary that is- not appropriate motivation for supporting elected officials to be), and analyze and appropriately restrict future income from big business to retiring politicians. Direct Personal Monetary benefits from business should not be a motive either in appearance or in fact for an elected official.

Lastly, we the people have to do a better job as voters, much better.

the American voter has always been stupid , and can't follow anything more complicated then a bumper sticker . how many fools say Obama is a muslim ? like that makes a difference .
one race years ago a candidate said he thinks his opponent is a homosapien and that cost the election .

do a better job ? we put bush in office two terms , and now repigs say he was great .

if you have that much knowledge in political affairs then talk , but the repigs didn't screw up our country over night , it want be fixed over night , may be not even in one term .

 

[sinister59]

You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom...

When you only have a hammer...

kas were you one of those "I'll gladly give up some of my constitutional rights to feel safe "?

 

[kaz]

You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom...

When you only have a hammer...

kas were you one of those "I'll gladly give up some of my constitutional rights to feel safe "?

Since you obviously know nothing about my views, why do you ask me this question? What have I ever said that indicates I would?

 

[G.T.]

With Big Business. We can picket it, boycott it, or simply choose other products and services. And because its survival depends on its bottom line, Big Business has every reason to satisfy its customers by providing what the customer wants.

Big Government has interest in only keeping happy or fooled those who elect them to public office. Like Big Business they also have to keep those satisfied, but they have the power to take from others in order to do that. Big Government is no more altruistic or service minded than Big Business and once they know they can use our money to buy our vote, their primary interest is in increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

It is because Big Government can forcibly confiscate our property, power, feedoms, options, and opportunities in order to buy enough votes to keep themselves in power, I far more trust Big Business than I do Big Government.

Further if you limit the power of Big Government to securing the rights of the people, it is much more likely to focus on that and Big Business will be forced to be even more customer friendly and much more competitive and therefore much less of a problem.

Big Business lines the pockets of Politicians to do its bidding. I think that is wrong. That's my only point in even mentioning it.

Which is not the fault of Big Business. It is the fault of the politicans who are doing the lining of the pockets. For that reason you should fear and disapprove of government far more than big business.

Limit the power of the federal government to its constitutional responsibilities of securing and defending the rights of the people, and it will not be able to line anybody's pockets and the problem is solved.

What came first, the chicken or the egg. Who has money to line anyone's pockets? Where did they get it?

 

[G.T.]

Foxfye, I fundamentally disagree with you. My opionon is that you seem to think that the government is a boogey man, this entity that has a life of its own, bad and corrupt by nature and inclination, as though it is a genetic thing without any cure possible. I disagree with that completely. I haven't given up on democracy, I believe in democracy, but I can only conclude that you don't think that democracy works. But, a successul democracy requires work by the electorate. It requires an electorate that pays attention and votes intelligently and from an accurately informed position. That isn't always a given, I will admit. Your fatalistic view of government (which is the primary creation of our democracy), the most successful democracy in history, is that business would be a better governor of the people? Well, with all the freedom and tax breaks our polititions have given big business since and beginning with Reagan, how has big business been doing for the bottom 85%? the Bottom 60%, the bottom 40%?

There are good people out there, capable people, dedicated people, moral people, but we need to vote for them, not others. We as a people have been asleep at the wheel. With the effective permission of the American public, we have allowed big business to infiltrate the government and the political process. The insistance of the right wing that believes in unbridled lack of regulation, that anything that business wants is what the country needs is a giant mistake. It directly led to the recent economic recession, the .com bubble, and the S&L debacle. The right wingers were duped (and continue to be so) even as we witness the fall out of such folly. Don't get me wrong, there are many Democrat polititions and a couple of Democrat presidents that contributed directly to the mess as well.

BTW, trusting big business is what has gotten us into this recession. It was republicans that are to blame for the most part, not just because it happened on their watch, it is because of there abrogration of the true role of government to govern, but instead they let big business have their way. The Supreme Court has made it much worse with their recent ruling.

A huge fix to the successful buyout of the polititions by big business is to reverse the Supreme Court ruling, pull back and restrict the lobbyists, dissallow any retiring congressman from becoming a lobbyist, greatly curb all contributions by all big business and from lobbyists (corps are not people/person - they have no soul and the only motive is a self interest and profit motive - mercenary that is- not appropriate motivation for supporting elected officials to be), and analyze and appropriately restrict future income from big business to retiring politicians. Direct Personal Monetary benefits from business should not be a motive either in appearance or in fact for an elected official.

Lastly, we the people have to do a better job as voters, much better.

Government is not a boogey man unless we give government powers that it was never intended to have. You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom.

I say restrict the government to its constitutional responsibility to secure and defend the rights of the people, and almost ALL of that other stuff would no longer be a problem.

And who pays off the Washington cronies to vote a certain way to achieve more of this power? BIG BUSINESS.

 

[MitchMan]

I don't know if more government is what is needed. I don't look at it in that quantitative sense. Government has a job to do, and it needs whatever size it takes to do the job and at any given moment in time. What it does need is better regulation, better and more effective enforcement, better restrictions where restriction is called for, less restriction where less restriction is called for in order to do the job that aught to be done by the government.

I believe this new "religion" that many conservatives commonly espouse about a strict adherence to the constitution is misguided. Do you know that at the time the constitution was drafted, there were only about 3 or 4 million people in the then USA? Technology was primative, the chemical periodic table was woefully incomplete, women did not have the vote, blacks did not have freedom, the germ theory had not been discovered nor developed, there were no anaesthetics, the complexity of life was very primative in comparison to today, the complexity of society's (3 million in an agregarian economy and society versus 300 million in a technological world) needs economically and legally was by comparison simplistic and primitive with more issues needing attention than were every realized or even contemplated by the founders. Communications and air travel and technology and the size of the population of our then country and the then world was simplistic and miniscule by comparison. Do you have any idea how complex interstate commerce (and international commerce) has become and all the complexities and nuances involved and constant state of flux that is necessary to handle the myriad of new situations that come up everyday?

To think that a document written over two hundred years ago by the founders who lived in a vastly and infinitesimly simpler world were capable of writing a single document then that would apply in every instance correctly, sufficiently, and adequately to our country within the complexities that have evolved in a 6 billion population world today is, simply, naive. To further state "restrict the government to its constitutional responsibility to secure and defend the rights of the people, and almost ALL of that other stuff would no longer be a problem" is utopian naivite. The world is alive, growing, and constantly evolving in complexity, so is our country. Certain ethics in the constitution and certain ethics left out of the constitution should be our guide. And, I do believe that certain moral fundamentals aught not change over time, but I do not have this blind simplistic belief that the constitution is adequate or sufficient as is now or fo the future. It's a great document, it's not the Ten Commandments.

I know you believe what you said. But, that last statment that I quoted above is too naive, simplistic, and dangerous. I am hoping that you are not a libertarian, I am giving you more credit than that until otherwise disclosed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfye, I fundamentally disagree with you. My opionon is that you seem to think that the government is a boogey man, this entity that has a life of its own, bad and corrupt by nature and inclination, as though it is a genetic thing without any cure possible. I disagree with that completely. I haven't given up on democracy, I believe in democracy, but I can only conclude that you don't think that democracy works. But, a successul democracy requires work by the electorate. It requires an electorate that pays attention and votes intelligently and from an accurately informed position. That isn't always a given, I will admit. Your fatalistic view of government (which is the primary creation of our democracy), the most successful democracy in history, is that business would be a better governor of the people? Well, with all the freedom and tax breaks our polititions have given big business since and beginning with Reagan, how has big business been doing for the bottom 85%? the Bottom 60%, the bottom 40%?

There are good people out there, capable people, dedicated people, moral people, but we need to vote for them, not others. We as a people have been asleep at the wheel. With the effective permission of the American public, we have allowed big business to infiltrate the government and the political process. The insistance of the right wing that believes in unbridled lack of regulation, that anything that business wants is what the country needs is a giant mistake. It directly led to the recent economic recession, the .com bubble, and the S&L debacle. The right wingers were duped (and continue to be so) even as we witness the fall out of such folly. Don't get me wrong, there are many Democrat polititions and a couple of Democrat presidents that contributed directly to the mess as well.

BTW, trusting big business is what has gotten us into this recession. It was republicans that are to blame for the most part, not just because it happened on their watch, it is because of there abrogration of the true role of government to govern, but instead they let big business have their way. The Supreme Court has made it much worse with their recent ruling.

A huge fix to the successful buyout of the polititions by big business is to reverse the Supreme Court ruling, pull back and restrict the lobbyists, dissallow any retiring congressman from becoming a lobbyist, greatly curb all contributions by all big business and from lobbyists (corps are not people/person - they have no soul and the only motive is a self interest and profit motive - mercenary that is- not appropriate motivation for supporting elected officials to be), and analyze and appropriately restrict future income from big business to retiring politicians. Direct Personal Monetary benefits from business should not be a motive either in appearance or in fact for an elected official.

Lastly, we the people have to do a better job as voters, much better.

Government is not a boogey man unless we give government powers that it was never intended to have. You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom.

I say restrict the government to its constitutional responsibility to secure and defend the rights of the people, and almost ALL of that other stuff would no longer be a problem.

And who pays off the Washington cronies to vote a certain way to achieve more of this power? BIG BUSINESS.

In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else. It is their right and is a freedom we should not sneer at.

The government however has no money. It cannot give money or benefit to one person or entity or group without taking it from or obligating another. Deny government the power to take from one person, entity, or group in order to give it to another and Big Business could give all their profits to whomever they like but would not be able to benefit from that one whit.

It is wise to keep these things in perspective.

 

[MitchMan]

Foxfyre, Foxfyre, Foxfyre. Really? Reread what you just wrote, listen to yourself, please. Common sense and many laws on the books restrict personal freedoms when it is detrimental to the whole. Do I really have to give you examples of that? Really, you must start to think things through better. You know, Southern states during the civil rights era were hiding behind states rights when they were trying desperately and immorally trying to prevent school integration and other measures of integration like riding on a bus and sitting wherever you want, eliminating separate public bathroom facilities, and patronizing any public restaurant you want. Freedom you say. Well, we live in a large society. The more crowded it becomes, the more we have to give and take in order for all of us to live and work and be together successfully. The country doesn't have only 3 million people like it did in 1776. Freedom in a large society doesn't mean freedom to do anything you can do regardless of who it hurts and regardless of its obvious detrimental effects and of your wherewithall to do it. If Bill Gates and the Koch brothers and the Walton Family and other multibillionaires got together and decided to contribute as much as they wanted without any limit or without any disclosure and they also recruited unlimited foreign money to get their personal agendas and personal politicians elected, you think that would be just fine because its "freedom" in the execution? Come on, anyone can see that certain rules must be observed in order to prevent obvious detriments. Please! That's like being for the right to shoot kids that walk on your lawn because you have the gun to do it and the money to buy it and, well, after all, what about your property rights of exclusive use of your real estate? What about being able to exclude serving blacks at your public restaurant in order to preserve your freedom to serve or not serve whomever you want as part and parcel to your private property rights and personal freedom to do whatever you want with your private property? Hmmmmm Rand Paul, I mean, Foxfyre?

Listen to yourself. "In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else. It is their right and is a freedom we should not sneer at." There you go again, being utopian while regurgitating a rank conservative talking point. You certainly must curb the freedom of a person to buy undue and unfair influence, especially when the public will can be negated by a powerful few.

BTW, my original message was talking about the undue influence that unfettered political influence by big business and their lobbyists have on our political system and the Supreme Court ruling that considered corporations and unions as "legal persons", thereby allowing these entities (foreign or domestic) to contribute as much as they wanted (undisclosed) to US politicians and their campaigns. I wasn't initially addressing this issue with regard to individuals - you went there though.

Your second paragraph is jibberish. I have heard that stuff many times before from other cons. That reasoning goes no where real. Just a little question for you, if the government didn't take any money in the form of taxes from anyone, how would you support your beloved military? You don't have to answer, I was just funnin' with you. You know, that second paragraphy passage of yours was a little Glenn Beckish, maybe even a little Palinesque.

Talk about being wise and keeping perspective. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black or something like, "Doctor, heal thyself".

 

[kaz]

When you only have a hammer...

kas were you one of those "I'll gladly give up some of my constitutional rights to feel safe "?

Since you obviously know nothing about my views, why do you ask me this question? What have I ever said that indicates I would?

So you withdraw your accusation bitch since you failed to provide a quote backing it up?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, Foxfyre, Foxfyre. Really? Reread what you just wrote, listen to yourself, please. Common sense and many laws on the books restrict personal freedoms when it is detrimental to the whole. Do I really have to give you examples of that? Really, you must start to think things through better. You know, Southern states during the civil rights era were hiding behind states rights when they were trying desperately and immorally trying to prevent school integration and other measures of integration like riding on a bus and sitting wherever you want, eliminating separate public bathroom facilities, and patronizing any public restaurant you want. Freedom you say. Well, we live in a large society. The more crowded it becomes, the more we have to give and take in order for all of us to live and work and be together successfully. The country doesn't have only 3 million people like it did in 1776. Freedom in a large society doesn't mean freedom to do anything you can do regardless of who it hurts and regardless of its obvious detrimental effects and of your wherewithall to do it. If Bill Gates and the Koch brothers and the Walton Family and other multibillionaires got together and decided to contribute as much as they wanted without any limit or without any disclosure and they also recruited unlimited foreign money to get their personal agendas and personal politicians elected, you think that would be just fine because its "freedom" in the execution? Come on, anyone can see that certain rules must be observed in order to prevent obvious detriments. Please! That's like being for the right to shoot kids that walk on your lawn because you have the gun to do it and the money to buy it and, well, after all, what about your property rights of exclusive use of your real estate? What about being able to exclude serving blacks at your public restaurant in order to preserve your freedom to serve or not serve whomever you want as part and parcel to your private property rights and personal freedom to do whatever you want with your private property? Hmmmmm Rand Paul, I mean, Foxfyre?

Listen to yourself. "In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else. It is their right and is a freedom we should not sneer at." There you go again, being utopian while regurgitating a rank conservative talking point. You certainly must curb the freedom of a person to buy undue and unfair influence, especially when the public will can be negated by a powerful few.

BTW, my original message was talking about the undue influence that unfettered political influence by big business and their lobbyists have on our political system and the Supreme Court ruling that considered corporations and unions as "legal persons", thereby allowing these entities (foreign or domestic) to contribute as much as they wanted (undisclosed) to US politicians and their campaigns. I wasn't initially addressing this issue with regard to individuals - you went there though.

Your second paragraph is jibberish. I have heard that stuff many times before from other cons. That reasoning goes no where real. Just a little question for you, if the government didn't take any money in the form of taxes from anyone, how would you support your beloved military? You don't have to answer, I was just funnin' with you. You know, that second paragraphy passage of yours was a little Glenn Beckish, maybe even a little Palinesque.

Talk about being wise and keeping perspective. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black or something like, "Doctor, heal thyself".

Mitch,mitch,mitch, I have not ever said that anybody should not lawfully use their own money in any way they choose.

I have a huge problem with anybody being able to buy special favors or consideration from the government at the expense of other tax payers. It should be unlawful for the federal government to grant special favors or consideration to anybody.

I have no problem for the government taking taxes proportionately from ALL in order to do the constitutionally mandated functions of government.

I have a huge problem with the government taking taxes from one segment of society in order to give it to another segment. And the law should be changed to prevent the ability of the federal government to do that.

That breaks it down into simple concepts most can understand.

 

[kaz]

kas were you one of those "I'll gladly give up some of my constitutional rights to feel safe "?

Since you obviously know nothing about my views, why do you ask me this question? What have I ever said that indicates I would?

So you withdraw your accusation bitch since you failed to provide a quote backing it up?

I'll take your running away and hiding as a yes and answer your question. Like Bozo the Clown in the other tread, again it was an accusation you pulled out of your ass and like Bozo the Clown you were wrong. And like Bozo the Clown, you're obviously used to that. You're not sinister so much as you are sister, girlfriend. Man up and take people on head to head for what they say and keep what's in your ass to yourself.

 

[Chris]

Government is not a boogey man unless we give government powers that it was never intended to have. You seem to think the solution is more government, more regulation, more restrictions, less freedom.

I say restrict the government to its constitutional responsibility to secure and defend the rights of the people, and almost ALL of that other stuff would no longer be a problem.

And who pays off the Washington cronies to vote a certain way to achieve more of this power? BIG BUSINESS.

In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else. It is their right and is a freedom we should not sneer at.

The government however has no money. It cannot give money or benefit to one person or entity or group without taking it from or obligating another. Deny government the power to take from one person, entity, or group in order to give it to another and Big Business could give all their profits to whomever they like but would not be able to benefit from that one whit.

It is wise to keep these things in perspective.

A conservative defense of bribery.

Amazing.

 

[Oddball]

If the politicians have nothing too sell, there'd be nobody to buy it.

Leave it to a naïve fruitcake like you to believe that such power can be amassed and not be up for sale.

 

[Chris]

If the politicians have nothing too sell, there'd be nobody to buy it.

Leave it to a naïve fruitcake like you to believe that such power can be amassed and not be up for sale.

Leave it a fruitcake like you to defend bribery.

 

[sinister59]

If the politicians have nothing too sell, there'd be nobody to buy it.

Leave it to a naïve fruitcake like you to believe that such power can be amassed and not be up for sale.

thats just stupid

 

[Oddball]

Really?

Do you really believe that greed and avarice ceases, just because you can manage to get elected or worm your way into the bureaucracy?