Democrats simply can't run on ideas

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All I hear on tv & in their adds is:

Race bullshit
Minimum wage bullshit (I mean seriously, how many voters work for minimum wage? .02%?)
All of their adds are negative & appealing to the stupidest among us.
Their spouses run around STEALING the yard signs of their opponents.
They buy the votes of the most downtrodden.
They cheat like a 6 year old at checkers.

I would be embarrassed to publicly admit I was a democrat.

What ideas do the Republicans have? They seem to be entirely reactionary - whatever Obama is for, we're opposed to it. That and tax cuts for the very wealthy. If Obama came out as being for breathing, I would expect Republicans to be turning blue within minutes,

Tax cuts for the very wealthy would be difficult since wealth is not taxed.

Buffett says he s still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4 2013

actually he pays 10,000 times more than his secretary assuming he makes 200 million a year. It does not seem fair does it?

Stop crying about what's fair. What worked Harry? When these guys made it big in America, they made it in a country where the rich paid those kinds of taxes. Now that they are the old rich people, they don't want to pay the same taxes as the rich before them paid? Well then of course it's going to be harder for the next generation to make it when the rich in front of them are a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks who don't get it that they are trying to change the game after they have made it! You don't get to do that Harry. If your grandparents made a good life for themselves back when college was cheap and wages were high and we had safety nets, etc, how dare they once they get old try to pass laws that make college more expensive and eliminate the safety nets, lower wages, etc that existed when they were up and coming.

dear, there were no safety nets just crippling and deadly liberal soviet welfare programs designed to buy votes. Get it now?

 

[bripat9643]

Neither can Republicans. Claiming to support a 'free market' of their own definition* or 'lower taxes', won't make me vote for them - any more than claiming to support the poor and downtrodden will make me vote Democrat.

*Politicians are happy to support a 'free market'. Yet they never tell me what they mean by a 'free market', is it the one where corporations monopolize the market and milk the people dry? Or the one that encourages innovation and free enterprise?

Any one with a shred of intelligence knows that a free market is an expression of support for a business model with little to no intervention by the government....................

The coal industry would be one this current administration has declared war on and by over regulating / over taxing has effectively shut that industry down .............

The coal industry, much like the oil and gas industry, is a government sponsored monopoly. It may well be necessary to support them to help boost America's prosperity - however it is unfortunate that they are your perception of a free market.

None of those industries are monopolies, nor are they "government sponsored." Your record for being wrong about everything is why a generally don't even bother to read your posts.

 

[hipeter924]

Neither can Republicans. Claiming to support a 'free market' of their own definition* or 'lower taxes', won't make me vote for them - any more than claiming to support the poor and downtrodden will make me vote Democrat.

*Politicians are happy to support a 'free market'. Yet they never tell me what they mean by a 'free market', is it the one where corporations monopolize the market and milk the people dry? Or the one that encourages innovation and free enterprise?

Any one with a shred of intelligence knows that a free market is an expression of support for a business model with little to no intervention by the government....................

The coal industry would be one this current administration has declared war on and by over regulating / over taxing has effectively shut that industry down .............

The coal industry, much like the oil and gas industry, is a government sponsored monopoly. It may well be necessary to support them to help boost America's prosperity - however it is unfortunate that they are your perception of a free market.

None of those industries are monopolies, nor are they "government sponsored."[..]

You don't know your history then, the US oil industry has had plenty of monopolies, like with Standard Oil: Standard Oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't read your posts either, so probably will just put your posts on ignore now. So thanks for telling me yours aren't worth reading.

 

[bripat9643]

Neither can Republicans. Claiming to support a 'free market' of their own definition* or 'lower taxes', won't make me vote for them - any more than claiming to support the poor and downtrodden will make me vote Democrat.

*Politicians are happy to support a 'free market'. Yet they never tell me what they mean by a 'free market', is it the one where corporations monopolize the market and milk the people dry? Or the one that encourages innovation and free enterprise?

Any one with a shred of intelligence knows that a free market is an expression of support for a business model with little to no intervention by the government....................

The coal industry would be one this current administration has declared war on and by over regulating / over taxing has effectively shut that industry down .............

The coal industry, much like the oil and gas industry, is a government sponsored monopoly. It may well be necessary to support them to help boost America's prosperity - however it is unfortunate that they are your perception of a free market.

None of those industries are monopolies, nor are they "government sponsored."[..]

You don't know your history then, the US oil industry has had plenty of monopolies, like with Standard Oil: Standard Oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't read your posts either, so probably will just put your posts on ignore now. So thanks for telling me yours aren't worth reading.

Standar oil wasn't a monopoly, so I do know my history. The claim that it was a monopoly is a lieral myth. There has never been a monopoly in the history civilization that wasn't government enforced.

 

[hipeter924]

Neither can Republicans. Claiming to support a 'free market' of their own definition* or 'lower taxes', won't make me vote for them - any more than claiming to support the poor and downtrodden will make me vote Democrat.

*Politicians are happy to support a 'free market'. Yet they never tell me what they mean by a 'free market', is it the one where corporations monopolize the market and milk the people dry? Or the one that encourages innovation and free enterprise?

Any one with a shred of intelligence knows that a free market is an expression of support for a business model with little to no intervention by the government....................

The coal industry would be one this current administration has declared war on and by over regulating / over taxing has effectively shut that industry down .............

The coal industry, much like the oil and gas industry, is a government sponsored monopoly. It may well be necessary to support them to help boost America's prosperity - however it is unfortunate that they are your perception of a free market.

None of those industries are monopolies, nor are they "government sponsored."[..]

You don't know your history then, the US oil industry has had plenty of monopolies, like with Standard Oil: Standard Oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't read your posts either, so probably will just put your posts on ignore now. So thanks for telling me yours aren't worth reading.

Standar oil wasn't a monopoly, so I do know my history. The claim that it was a monopoly is a lieral myth. There has never been a monopoly in the history civilization that wasn't government enforced.

Standard Oil was found to be a monopoly by the US Supreme Court, and the reason I brought up monopolies was because there have been a few good articles on it recently: http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.624181

In the second half of the 19th century, a young entrepreneur from Cleveland, Ohio, named John D. Rockefeller discovered the enormous potential in refining crude oil. The American oil industry was still in its infancy and most other entrepreneurs were looking to drill – but not refine. Because of Rockefeller’s sharp business instincts and the innovative new methods of refining he developed with his partners, his company, Standard Oil, became a huge and aggressive monopoly that, at its height, controlled over 90% of the U.S. oil market, and charged consumers excessive prices.

Keep digging yourself a hole on this one, but since it is obvious that reality isn't popular as my posts aren't 'worth reading', it seems to be a waste of time trying to convince you.

 

[d_tyler]

So long Wendy Davis!!!!

 

[Borillar]

Well, guess we all will get to see what great ideas the repugs have. Any bets on what the repug agenda will be? My top 20.
1. Eliminate social safety net.
2. Build a moat with alligators along border with Mexico.
3. Obama impeachment.
4. English official language.
5. Christianity official religion.
6. Outlaw all abortion.
7. Repeal ACA for millionth time.
8. Been Gassy investigations.
9. Feet on the furniture investigation.
10. Umbrellagate investigation.
11. Birth Certificate investigation.
12. Round up political opponents and put into FEMA camps.
13. War with Iran.
14. War with North Korea.
15. War with Russia.
16. Call off the impending secession of neo-confederate states since they control the senate now.
17. Open all public lands including national parks for oil drilling, clear cutting, and strip mining.
18. Eliminate all taxes for billionaires.
19. Eliminate all taxes for business.
20. Eliminate environmental pollution standards.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The tears are exceptionally salty tonight.

 

[bripat9643]

Any one with a shred of intelligence knows that a free market is an expression of support for a business model with little to no intervention by the government....................

The coal industry would be one this current administration has declared war on and by over regulating / over taxing has effectively shut that industry down .............

The coal industry, much like the oil and gas industry, is a government sponsored monopoly. It may well be necessary to support them to help boost America's prosperity - however it is unfortunate that they are your perception of a free market.

None of those industries are monopolies, nor are they "government sponsored."[..]

You don't know your history then, the US oil industry has had plenty of monopolies, like with Standard Oil: Standard Oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't read your posts either, so probably will just put your posts on ignore now. So thanks for telling me yours aren't worth reading.

Standar oil wasn't a monopoly, so I do know my history. The claim that it was a monopoly is a lieral myth. There has never been a monopoly in the history civilization that wasn't government enforced.

Standard Oil was found to be a monopoly by the US Supreme Court, and the reason I brought up monopolies was because there have been a few good articles on it recently: Advertisement

In the second half of the 19th century, a young entrepreneur from Cleveland, Ohio, named John D. Rockefeller discovered the enormous potential in refining crude oil. The American oil industry was still in its infancy and most other entrepreneurs were looking to drill – but not refine. Because of Rockefeller’s sharp business instincts and the innovative new methods of refining he developed with his partners, his company, Standard Oil, became a huge and aggressive monopoly that, at its height, controlled over 90% of the U.S. oil market, and charged consumers excessive prices.

Keep digging yourself a hole on this one, but since it is obvious that reality isn't popular as my posts aren't 'worth reading', it seems to be a waste of time trying to convince you.

Your quote isn't sourced, so it has zero credibility. Even if it was sourced, it's probably by some dimwit leftwing historian who doesn't know diddly squat about economics. Whether a corporation has a monopoly is an economic issue, not a legal issue, and no credible economist would claim Standard Oil had the ability to charge monopoly prices to its customers. The fact is that the price of Kerosene dropped every year that Standard Oil supposedly enjoyed its monopoly. The reason it had such a large market share was the simple fact that its prices were lower than the prices charged by any of its compeitors. If you charge $100/ton for steel and all your competitors are charging $200/ton, then you are going to get the lion's share of the business. If that were to occur, then a bunch of sore loser competitors would be lobbying Congress to restrict your "monopoly" business practices and a bunch of liberal morons would be calling you an evil monopolist.

Your claim is just a flat out lie.

 

[bripat9643]

The tears are exceptionally salty tonight.

Music to my ears.

Listen to the lamentations of the women.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You don't know your history then, the US oil industry has had plenty of monopolies, like with Standard Oil: Standard Oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't read your posts either, so probably will just put your posts on ignore now. So thanks for telling me yours aren't worth reading.

Ok, class is in session, history lesson for the day ..................

{Excerpt]

John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), founder of the Standard Oil Company, became one of the world’s wealthiest men and a major philanthropist. Born into modest circumstances in upstate New York, he entered the then-fledgling oil business in 1863 by investing in a Cleveland, Ohio, refinery. In 1870, he established Standard Oil, which by the early 1880s controlled some 90 percent of U.S. refineries and pipelines. Critics accused Rockefeller of engaging in unethical practices, such as predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors, in order to gain a monopoly in the industry. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of anti-trust laws and ordered it to dissolve. During his life Rockefeller donated more than $500 million to various philanthropic causes.

[/Excerpt]

This is the only documented case of monopoly in the oil industry, as per your claims please provide any other example which you are making allusions to .............
In other words, you are full of shit ...............
First off, the government had no involvement with this monopoly as it was an emerging industry and Rockefeller was the one who built it and there were no government subsidies involved, in fact the Feds are the one's who dissolved the monster company making it into smaller component companies ............ like they did ma bell later in life.

[Excerpt]
A History Of U.S. Monopolies
By Andrew Beattie AAA |



Monopolies came to the United States with the colonial administration. The large-scale public works needed to make the New World hospitable to Old World immigrants required large companies to carry them out. These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. Even after the American Revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land they held.

Monopoly is the extreme case in capitalism. It is characterized by a lack of competition, which can mean higher prices and inferior products. However, the great economic power that monopolies hold has also had positive consequences for the U.S. Read on to take a look at some of the most notorious monopolies, their effects on the economy and the government's response to their rise to power.

Sherman's HammerResponding to a large public outcry to check the price fixing abuses of these monopolies, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890. This act banned trusts and monopolistic combinations that lessened or otherwise hampered interstate and international trade. The act acted like a hammer for the government, giving it the power to shatter big companies into smaller pieces to suit its own needs.


Despite this act's passage in 1890, the next 50 years saw the formation of many domestic monopolies. During this same period, the antitrust legislation was used to attack several monopolies with varying levels of success. The general trend with the use of the act seemed to have been to make a distinction between good monopolies and bad monopolies as seen by the government.

Case Study 1: International Harvester and American Tobacco
For example, International Harvester produced cheap agricultural equipment for a largely agrarian nation, and was thus considered untouchable lest the voters rebel. American Tobacco, on the other hand, was suspected of charging more than a fair price for cigarettes - then touted as the cure for everything from asthma to menstrual cramps - and consequently called down the legislator's wrath in 1907 and was broken up in 1911.

The Benefits of a Monopoly

Case Study 2: Standard Oil
The oil industry was prone to a natural monopoly because of the rarity of the deposits. Rockefeller and his partners took advantage of both the rarity of oil and the revenue produced from it to set up a monopoly without the help of the banks. The business practices and questionable tactics that Rockefeller used to create Standard Oil would make the Enron crowd blush, but the finished product was not near as damaging to the economy or the environment as the industry was before Rockefeller monopolized it. (For more on this sector, read Oil And Gas Industry Primer and Unearth Profits In Oil Exploration And Production.)

Back when there were a lot of oil companies competing to make the most of their find, companies would often pump waste products into rivers or straight out on the ground rather than going to the cost of researching proper disposal. They also cut costs by using shoddy pipelines that were prone to leakage. By the time Standard Oil had cornered 90% of oil production and distribution in the United States, it had learned how to make money off of even its industrial waste - Vaseline being but one of the new products launched.

The benefits of having a monopoly like Standard Oil in the country was only realized after it had built a nationwide infrastructure that no longer depended on trains and their notoriously fluctuating costs, a leap that would help reduce costs and the overall price of petroleum products after the company was dismantled. The size of Standard Oil allowed it to undertake projects that disparate companies could never agree on and, in that sense, it was as beneficial as state-regulated utilities for developing the U.S. into an industrial nation.

Despite the eventual break of up of Standard Oil, the government realized that a monopoly could build up a reliable infrastructure and deliver low-cost service to a broader base of consumers than competing firms - a lesson that influenced its decision to allow the AT&T monopoly to continue until 1982. The profits of Standard Oil and the generous dividends also encouraged investors, and thereby the market, to invest in monopolistic firms, providing them with the funds to grow larger.


The Limitations of a Monopoly

Case Study 3: U.S. Steel
Andrew Carnegie, a Scot of the penny-pinching Braveheart variety, went a long way in creating a monopoly in the steel industry when J.P. Morgan bought his steel company and melded it into U.S. Steel. A monstrous corporation approaching the size of Standard Oil, U.S. Steel actually did very little with the resources in its grasp - which can point to the limitations to having only one owner with a single vision. The corporation survived its court battle with the Sherman Act and went on to lobby the government for protective tariffs to help it compete internationally, but it grew very little.

U.S. Steel controlled about 70% of steel production, but competing firms were hungrier, more innovative and more efficient with their 30% of the market. U.S. Steel stagnated in innovation as smaller companies ate more and more of its market share. (To read more about Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, check out The 5 Most Feared Figures In Finance.)

Clayton Improves Sherman's Aim
Following the break up of sugar, tobacco, oil and meat-packing monopolies, big business didn't know where to turn because there were no clear guidelines about what constituted monopolistic business practices. The founders and management of so-called "bad monopolies" were also enraged by the hands-off approach taken with International Harvester. They justly argued that the Sherman Act didn't make allowance for a specific business or product, and that its execution should be universal rather than operating like lightning bolts thrown down upon select businesses by the wrathful gods in government.

In response, the Clayton Act was introduced in 1914. It set some specific examples of practices that would attract Sherman's hammer. Among these were interlocking directorships, tie-in sales, and certain mergers and acquisitions if they substantially lessened the competition in a market. This was followed by a succession of other acts demanding that businesses consult the government before any large mergers or acquisitions took place.

Although these innovations did give business a slightly clearer picture of what not to do, it did little to curb the randomness of antitrust action. Major League Baseball even found itself under investigation in the 1920s, but escaped by claiming to be a sport rather than a business and thus not classified as interstate commerce.

End of a Monopoly Era?
The last great American monopolies were created a century apart and one lasted over a century, whereas the other was very short-lived or still continuing depending where you sit.

Case Study 4: AT&T and Microsoft
AT&T was a government-supported monopoly - a public utility - that would have to be considered a coercive monopoly. Like Standard Oil, the AT&T monopoly made the industry more efficient and wasn't guilty of fixing prices, but rather the potential to fix prices. The break up of AT&T by Reagan in the 1980s gave birth to the "baby bells". Since that time, many of the baby bells have begun to merge and increase in size in order to provide better service to a wider area. Very likely, the break up of AT&T caused a sharp reduction in service quality for many customers and, in some cases, higher prices, but the settling period has elapsed and the baby bells are growing to find a natural balance in the market without calling down Sherman's hammer again.

Microsoft, on the other hand, was never actually broken up even though it lost its case. The case against it was centered on whether Microsoft was abusing what was essentially a non-coercive monopoly. Microsoft has been challenged by many companies, including Google, over its operating systems' continuing hostility to competitors' software.

Just as U.S. Steel couldn't dominate the market indefinitely because of innovative domestic and international competition, the same is true for Microsoft. A non-coercive monopoly only exists as long as brand loyalty and consumer apathy keep people from searching for a better alternative. Even now, the Microsoft monopoly is looking chipped at the edges as rival operating systems are gaining ground and rival software, particularly open source software, is threatening the bundle business model upon which Microsoft was built. Because of this, the antitrust case seems premature and/or redundant.

ConclusionGlobalization and the maturity of the world economy have prompted calls for the retirement of antitrust laws. In the early 1900s, people suggesting that the government didn't need to have a hammer to smash big business with would've been eyed suspiciously as a member of a lunatic fringe or one of Wall Street's big money cartel members. Over the years, these calls have been coming from people like economist Milton Friedman, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan and everyday consumers. If the history of government and business is any indication, the government is more likely to increase the range and power of antitrust laws rather than relinquish such a useful weapon.

[/Excerpt]

A History Of U.S. Monopolies

So now, your rambling ass bull shit post are meant to convey what sentiment again??

 

[sealybobo]

What ideas do the Republicans have? They seem to be entirely reactionary - whatever Obama is for, we're opposed to it. That and tax cuts for the very wealthy. If Obama came out as being for breathing, I would expect Republicans to be turning blue within minutes,

Tax cuts for the very wealthy would be difficult since wealth is not taxed.

Buffett says he s still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4 2013

actually he pays 10,000 times more than his secretary assuming he makes 200 million a year. It does not seem fair does it?

Stop crying about what's fair. What worked Harry? When these guys made it big in America, they made it in a country where the rich paid those kinds of taxes. Now that they are the old rich people, they don't want to pay the same taxes as the rich before them paid? Well then of course it's going to be harder for the next generation to make it when the rich in front of them are a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks who don't get it that they are trying to change the game after they have made it! You don't get to do that Harry. If your grandparents made a good life for themselves back when college was cheap and wages were high and we had safety nets, etc, how dare they once they get old try to pass laws that make college more expensive and eliminate the safety nets, lower wages, etc that existed when they were up and coming.

dear, there were no safety nets just crippling and deadly liberal soviet welfare programs designed to buy votes. Get it now?

Are you purposely being intellectually dishonest?

Top Conservative We Have To Declare Peace On The Safety Net ThinkProgress

I have argued with righties who want to eliminate the social safety nets who THEY THEMSELVES have benefitted from.

I love my buddy who said he'd flip burgers before going on unemployment or that he would find a job tomorrow if he had to and then he not only was on unemployment, filed for an extension after 6 months and took vacations. Now I know why Republicans are so distrusting. They know everyone else is an asshole lying hypocritical fuck because they themselves are those things.

Why We Need to Defend the Social Safety Net.

 

[sealybobo]

What ideas do the Republicans have? They seem to be entirely reactionary - whatever Obama is for, we're opposed to it. That and tax cuts for the very wealthy. If Obama came out as being for breathing, I would expect Republicans to be turning blue within minutes,

Tax cuts for the very wealthy would be difficult since wealth is not taxed.

Buffett says he s still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4 2013

actually he pays 10,000 times more than his secretary assuming he makes 200 million a year. It does not seem fair does it?

Stop crying about what's fair. What worked Harry? When these guys made it big in America, they made it in a country where the rich paid those kinds of taxes. Now that they are the old rich people, they don't want to pay the same taxes as the rich before them paid? Well then of course it's going to be harder for the next generation to make it when the rich in front of them are a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks who don't get it that they are trying to change the game after they have made it! You don't get to do that Harry. If your grandparents made a good life for themselves back when college was cheap and wages were high and we had safety nets, etc, how dare they once they get old try to pass laws that make college more expensive and eliminate the safety nets, lower wages, etc that existed when they were up and coming.

dear, there were no safety nets just crippling and deadly liberal soviet welfare programs designed to buy votes. Get it now?

Give you an example. Guy wants to make something of himself so he goes to an affordable college and doesn't get too far into debt because we as a society provide affordable education. It might not be Harvard but it's a good education for ANYONE because anyone can afford it. Then we need banks that are willing to give LOW INTEREST loans for people to start a business. If they fail we use to have bankruptsy laws that didn't suck. Those safety nets are gone. Then we had foodstamps if things went really bad. I could go on and on but you get the point. Safety nets encourage people to take chances. Remove the safety nets and what do you have?

Why We Need to Defend the Social Safety Net.

 

[sealybobo]

In the future, only people who have a lot of money will be able to start a business. If it fails, oh well, I'll just start another company.

 

[hipeter924]

So now, your rambling ass bull shit post are meant to convey what sentiment again??

You're the one rambling, kinda why I am not going to bother reading that. If I wanted to read neo-liberal propaganda, which I don't, I would. Keep it up, sure sophistry will get you somewhere - you might even join the Federal Reserve, or the US Chamber of Commerce in a few years.

Back in the real world. We live in a mixed economy, with attempts at lassiez faire in several areas. The role of government in this, is to try and split up monopoles and maintain some semblance of competition - succeeds some of the time, but not most of the time.

Also, one of my friends is an economist, though a communist by his politics, and would laugh at the suggestion that a free market exists, save as smoke and mirrors.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tax cuts for the very wealthy would be difficult since wealth is not taxed.

Buffett says he s still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4 2013

actually he pays 10,000 times more than his secretary assuming he makes 200 million a year. It does not seem fair does it?

Stop crying about what's fair. What worked Harry? When these guys made it big in America, they made it in a country where the rich paid those kinds of taxes. Now that they are the old rich people, they don't want to pay the same taxes as the rich before them paid? Well then of course it's going to be harder for the next generation to make it when the rich in front of them are a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks who don't get it that they are trying to change the game after they have made it! You don't get to do that Harry. If your grandparents made a good life for themselves back when college was cheap and wages were high and we had safety nets, etc, how dare they once they get old try to pass laws that make college more expensive and eliminate the safety nets, lower wages, etc that existed when they were up and coming.

dear, there were no safety nets just crippling and deadly liberal soviet welfare programs designed to buy votes. Get it now?

Give you an example. Guy wants to make something of himself so he goes to an affordable college and doesn't get too far into debt because we as a society provide affordable education. It might not be Harvard but it's a good education for ANYONE because anyone can afford it. Then we need banks that are willing to give LOW INTEREST loans for people to start a business. If they fail we use to have bankruptsy laws that didn't suck. Those safety nets are gone. Then we had foodstamps if things went really bad. I could go on and on but you get the point. Safety nets encourage people to take chances. Remove the safety nets and what do you have?

Why We Need to Defend the Social Safety Net.

Dear, online education is free often and community colleges are cheap for sure. Anyone is free to give loans to anyone who starts a business. Each month 550,000 new businesses start up!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

split up monopoles and maintain some semblance of competition - succeeds some of the time, but not most of the time.

total complete liberal idiocy. There are 30 million corporations in America. Name just one that has a monopoly??

See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and would laugh at the suggestion that a free market exists, save as smoke and mirrors.

total stupidity which explains why you are so afraid to present your best example. What does your fear teach us,liberal ?

 

[paulitician]

Well in fairness, 'Republicans are racist' and 'The Republican War on Women' are ideas. They're stupid absurd ideas, but they are ideas. Looks like that wasn't enough for em this time around though. Couldn't stir up the Moocher whiners, Illegals, and Felons enough. Hey, it happens.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the future, only people who have a lot of money will be able to start a business. If it fails, oh well, I'll just start another company.

dear the future is now and 550,000 start a business each month!! Ignorance?

 

[jc456]

Yes, democrats have the gall to be as deceitful as the GOP. I just can't believe it....tsk,,tsk...

hmmm they are labeled the machine!! Chicago is the hallmark city for their lameness. To the point of doing rotocalls to the election judges telling them not to come in for work yesterday. Causing caos gallor in the city. Yeah these dems are real pieces of work. how about... Refusing to concede when they lose. cough, Quinn......and oh, let me insult the guy that won while he's at it along with those who voted for him.

Republicans have their issues, but to put them in the same category as these useless tool Dems, naw, you're way off base.