How do you reconcile these?

[G.T.]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

 

[G.T.]

I ask because we are seeing here a dynamic created where the Bigger Corpos are getting, the more legislation falls in their favor. See Bail-Outs, for an example. See watered down Wall Street reform (with 2,000 Banking Lobbyists recently invading Washington right before), for an example.

 

[editec]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

You cannot reconcile it, but you can write it all off as original sin playing out in very complex ways in a very complex society.

Not very comforting, I admit, but at least that explanation makes sense.

 

[G.T.]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

You cannot reconcile it, but you can write it all off as original sin playing out in very complex ways in a very complex society.

Not very comforting, I admit, but at least that explanation makes sense.

Maybe I've been living in la-la land, but the more I learn the less the information makes any sense at all.

I'm sure someone feels me on thaT.

 

[G.T.]

I try my best to ask the right questions, but typically they're the ones without any answers.

 

[G.T.]

This thread is more popular than AIDS.

 

[G.T.]

If this thread were a sneaker, it would be New Balance.

 

[G.T.]

If this thread was a car-part, it would be the break-pedal censor on a Toyota.

 

[Sheldon]

If this thread was a hooker, you'd be the pimp.

 

[G.T.]

If this thread was a hooker, you'd be the pimp.

If this thread were a product, I'd be the commercial

 

[Sheldon]

If this thread mentioned Nazis, it'd get more responses.

 

[G.T.]

GT: "you think?"

Thread: "Nazis."

 

[Foxfyre]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

 

[G.T.]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.

This is 2010, right?

Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.

Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.

No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.

Just that public access channel. That's all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.

This is 2010, right?

Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.

Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.

No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.

Just that public access channel. That's all.

I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.

Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.

 

[G.T.]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.

This is 2010, right?

Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.

Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.

No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.

Just that public access channel. That's all.

I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.

Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

 

[xotoxi]

If this thread was a hooker, you'd be the pimp.

If this thread were a product, I'd be the commercial

IF YOU POST IN THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW,
I WILL POS REP YOU NOT ONLY ONCE...
BUT I WILL POS REP YOU A SECOND TIME...
ABSOLUTELY FREE!

 

[G.T.]

Xo,

If you were this thread's comedian, it would be HOS'd immediately

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

The first is allowing the market to make decisions based on the economics of supply and demand. The second is allowing the government to make those same decision based on bribery and dishonesty. What exactly do I need to reconcile? Do you have to reconcile your support of police with the fact that some police commit criminal acts?

 

[G.T.]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

The first is allowing the market to make decisions based on the economics of supply and demand. The second is allowing the government to make those same decision based on bribery and dishonesty. What exactly do I need to reconcile? Do you have to reconcile your support of police with the fact that some police commit criminal acts?

The second (to prohibit) requires laws, a.k.a. "regulations" to prevent.