Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obviously you do not know what a monopoly is.IOW, you STILL can't deny that anti-trust laws have not stopped the Corporate Feudalists from CONTROLLING their monopolies, so you continue to try to divert.So... you're saying you do believe in those conspiracies? You've ignored the question. I will be happy to continue the conversation after you address the question in front of you.
no dessert without cleaning off your plate.
Again the subtle difference between ownership and control is completely beyond your comprehension.
Which corporation in America has no competition whatsoever?
Like P-BO and health care, health insurance, the American Auto Industry and all those with the SEIU in their shops? Right. A government monopoly. Controlled directly or remotely by direct ownership, manipulation by proxy and/or outright fear and intimidation.Obviously you do not know what a monopoly is.IOW, you STILL can't deny that anti-trust laws have not stopped the Corporate Feudalists from CONTROLLING their monopolies, so you continue to try to divert.
Again the subtle difference between ownership and control is completely beyond your comprehension.
Which corporation in America has no competition whatsoever?
One group CONTROLS all the "competition" like the Rockefeller family CONTROLLING the oil monopoly. They CONTROL Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Mobile, etc.
Still desperately trying to change the subject!Like P-BO and health care, health insurance, the American Auto Industry and all those with the SEIU in their shops? Right. A government monopoly. Controlled directly or remotely by direct ownership, manipulation by proxy and/or outright fear and intimidation.Obviously you do not know what a monopoly is.Which corporation in America has no competition whatsoever?
One group CONTROLS all the "competition" like the Rockefeller family CONTROLLING the oil monopoly. They CONTROL Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Mobile, etc.
Good you recognize that.
You are saying that froot loops like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, Murtha, McKinney, Patty Murray, Specter and dozens of other legislators were picked by capitalists like Rockefeller to try and destroy them and steal their money?
Boy, you ARE blind. EdtheBlind is more like it.
I figured it was pointless to bring it up to someone who can't comprehend reality. Gotta shut down that program running in the background. It's wasting RAM and making you look a tad nutty.Still desperately trying to change the subject!Like P-BO and health care, health insurance, the American Auto Industry and all those with the SEIU in their shops? Right. A government monopoly. Controlled directly or remotely by direct ownership, manipulation by proxy and/or outright fear and intimidation.Obviously you do not know what a monopoly is.
One group CONTROLS all the "competition" like the Rockefeller family CONTROLLING the oil monopoly. They CONTROL Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Mobile, etc.
Good you recognize that.
You are saying that froot loops like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, Murtha, McKinney, Patty Murray, Specter and dozens of other legislators were picked by capitalists like Rockefeller to try and destroy them and steal their money?
Boy, you ARE blind. EdtheBlind is more like it.
Well, at least you have abandoned the anti-trust law crapola.
Do you mean like the "reality" that after divestiture in compliance with anti-trust laws, Rockefeller still CONTROLLED 60% of the proxies of Standard Oil? Oh, wait a minute, that's YOUR failure to comprehend reality.I figured it was pointless to bring it up to someone who can't comprehend reality. Gotta shut down that program running in the background. It's wasting RAM and making you look a tad nutty.Still desperately trying to change the subject!Like P-BO and health care, health insurance, the American Auto Industry and all those with the SEIU in their shops? Right. A government monopoly. Controlled directly or remotely by direct ownership, manipulation by proxy and/or outright fear and intimidation.
Good you recognize that.
You are saying that froot loops like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, Murtha, McKinney, Patty Murray, Specter and dozens of other legislators were picked by capitalists like Rockefeller to try and destroy them and steal their money?
Boy, you ARE blind. EdtheBlind is more like it.
Well, at least you have abandoned the anti-trust law crapola.
But please do ignore the fact you've exposed your deity and his pantheon of fools as they work to follow in Hitler/Stalin/Chavez/Castro's footsteps. A totalitarian regime.
Heck if you ask me, Hitler IS a movement CON$ervative.Hitler was also a staunch environmentalist, his first act was to impose complete gun control, he outlawed tobacco (much like the he huge tax on tabacco nowadays) started the National SOCIALIST Party (meaning he was a socialist), he hated capitalism, he played race politics, he supported forced sterilization and promoted abortion.
Heck if you ask me, Hitler's party looks like the Democratic party.
The Nazi Party (NSDAP)
[SIZE=+1]The Party Gets a New Name[/SIZE]
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
Did he not nationalize many industries within Germany? Hitler detested capitalism as a Jewish method to control the masses! He was a socialist through and through.
Many leftist come up with the argument that Hitler persecuted communist as proof of his right-wing stance. Not the case. Rationalizing Hitler is like rationalizing any evil dictator, its flawed with hypocrisy. Hitler saw them as an easy target to gain political and populace footing. He also attacked them, because Karl Marx and many of the Bolesviks were Jewish. Another way to push his antisemitic propaganda. Not to mention, communism was a Russian ideology, meaning a Slavic ideology and the Slavs were a racially inferior people to the Germans!
Heck if you ask me, Hitler IS a movement CON$ervative.Hitler was also a staunch environmentalist, his first act was to impose complete gun control, he outlawed tobacco (much like the he huge tax on tabacco nowadays) started the National SOCIALIST Party (meaning he was a socialist), he hated capitalism, he played race politics, he supported forced sterilization and promoted abortion.
Heck if you ask me, Hitler's party looks like the Democratic party.
The Nazi Party (NSDAP)
[SIZE=+1]The Party Gets a New Name[/SIZE]
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
...
...
...
That's what the Tea Parties are all about. And because they and others like them are the only thing standing in the way of total power, they must be demonized and destroyed.
I don't know what Obama's motives are--I am certain he is no Hitler--but the patterns are there for his being able to control more and more for whatever his end purpose is whether his adorers and worshipers want to recognize that or not.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/GM_Viability_Assessment.pdfBy NICK BUNKLEY
Published: April 19, 2010
DETROIT General Motors, hoping to build confidence in its turnaround and move toward becoming an independent public company again, plans to repay the balance of its government loans this week, a person with direct knowledge of the plans said Monday.
G.M. Expected to Repay Government Loans This Week - NYTimes.com
I could do a Stuttering LimpTard on you and say you just called the Teabaggers "Nazis."Did he not nationalize many industries within Germany? Hitler detested capitalism as a Jewish method to control the masses! He was a socialist through and through.
Many leftist come up with the argument that Hitler persecuted communist as proof of his right-wing stance. Not the case. Rationalizing Hitler is like rationalizing any evil dictator, its flawed with hypocrisy. Hitler saw them as an easy target to gain political and populace footing. He also attacked them, because Karl Marx and many of the Bolesviks were Jewish. Another way to push his antisemitic propaganda. Not to mention, communism was a Russian ideology, meaning a Slavic ideology and the Slavs were a racially inferior people to the Germans!
Heck if you ask me, Hitler IS a movement CON$ervative.
The Nazi Party (NSDAP)
[SIZE=+1]The Party Gets a New Name[/SIZE]
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
But to become dictator without taking the title by military force, the dictator first tells the people what they want to hear. He uses his gifts of oratory and a charismatic personality to make them love him, be willing to take any risk with him, put their faith in him. He creates a kind of religious fanaticism directing his passion at an image he creates.
He usually starts off making the people believe that he is there by virtue of popular appeal--a democratic process--and that he is the one who will finally restore them to peace and prosperity as well as dispelling all the evils that they perceive to exist. He does this by telling them what they want to hear. Being honest is not his intent--being believable to easily persuaded masses is his intent. And when he reverses himself on his previous rhetoric toward that end, he depends on their blind faith to accept his explanations that he was 'misunderstood' before, or it was somebody else's doing, or it was necessary due to circumstances beyond his control.
Because they so desperately want to believe that their faith was not misplaced, they keep grasping at any reason to keep him on the pedestal and pay homage to him.
But as Hitler or others like him have done, he slowly but surely dismantles the former economy, social structures, demographic balances. He finds villains to accuse for all the evil and offers soothing words to punch down any doubts and smooth over questions. He knows he doesn't have to actually own the means of production--he only has have control of what is done and who does it and he can do anything he wants. That might be the larger corporations, factories, or Wall Street.
The only thing that will thwart his rise to the ultimate goal to shape the nation into his image and achieve total and unquestioned control is that enough of the people refuse to be fooled, to remain gullible, to go along to get along. They either see the price of losing their liberties as too high, or they see the schtick as the sham that it is. And they rise up and retake the reins.
That's what the Tea Parties are all about. And because they and others like them are the only thing standing in the way of total power, they must be demonized and destroyed.
I don't know what Obama's motives are--I am certain he is no Hitler--but the patterns are there for his being able to control more and more for whatever his end purpose is whether his adorers and worshipers want to recognize that or not.
I could...say you just called the Teabaggers "Nazis."...
...
I don't know what Obama's motives are--I am certain he is no Hitler--but the patterns are there for his being able to control more and more for whatever his end purpose is whether his adorers and worshipers want to recognize that or not.
But I won't.
I see your Global Warming debate tactic of repeating the same irrelevancy over and over is not an isolated behavior.Do you mean like the "reality" that after divestiture in compliance with anti-trust laws, Rockefeller still CONTROLLED 60% of the proxies of Standard Oil? Oh, wait a minute, that's YOUR failure to comprehend reality.I figured it was pointless to bring it up to someone who can't comprehend reality. Gotta shut down that program running in the background. It's wasting RAM and making you look a tad nutty.Still desperately trying to change the subject!
Well, at least you have abandoned the anti-trust law crapola.
But please do ignore the fact you've exposed your deity and his pantheon of fools as they work to follow in Hitler/Stalin/Chavez/Castro's footsteps. A totalitarian regime.
If it really was irrelevant you wouldn't be so desperate to change the subject and you would explain how Rockefeller could still CONTROL 60% of the Standard Oil proxies AFTER divestiture if the anti-trust laws were effective at eliminating monopolies, as you stupidly claimed.I see your Global Warming debate tactic of repeating the same irrelevancy over and over is not an isolated behavior.Do you mean like the "reality" that after divestiture in compliance with anti-trust laws, Rockefeller still CONTROLLED 60% of the proxies of Standard Oil? Oh, wait a minute, that's YOUR failure to comprehend reality.I figured it was pointless to bring it up to someone who can't comprehend reality. Gotta shut down that program running in the background. It's wasting RAM and making you look a tad nutty.
But please do ignore the fact you've exposed your deity and his pantheon of fools as they work to follow in Hitler/Stalin/Chavez/Castro's footsteps. A totalitarian regime.
Do you have a graph or chart to show with this to back up nothing?
First off, do you understand what a monopoly or trust is or how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is supposed to work?If it really was irrelevant you wouldn't be so desperate to change the subject and you would explain how Rockefeller could still CONTROL 60% of the Standard Oil proxies AFTER divestiture if the anti-trust laws were effective at eliminating monopolies, as you stupidly claimed.I see your Global Warming debate tactic of repeating the same irrelevancy over and over is not an isolated behavior.Do you mean like the "reality" that after divestiture in compliance with anti-trust laws, Rockefeller still CONTROLLED 60% of the proxies of Standard Oil? Oh, wait a minute, that's YOUR failure to comprehend reality.
Do you have a graph or chart to show with this to back up nothing?
I not only know how it works, I know how it fails also. I gave you an example of how Rockrfeller had complete CONTROL of Standard Oil while owning only 25% after divestiture. I was trying to teach you the difference between ownership and control.First off, do you understand what a monopoly or trust is or how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is supposed to work?If it really was irrelevant you wouldn't be so desperate to change the subject and you would explain how Rockefeller could still CONTROL 60% of the Standard Oil proxies AFTER divestiture if the anti-trust laws were effective at eliminating monopolies, as you stupidly claimed.I see your Global Warming debate tactic of repeating the same irrelevancy over and over is not an isolated behavior.
Do you have a graph or chart to show with this to back up nothing?
Secondly, it is not criminal to be rich, or own a company, or have property. But if you really feel that way, gimme your bank account numbers. You have something I think I deserve.
You know, I'd be afraid to give you two braincells to rub together. You'd burn your head off.
I love how you know-it-alls, who know nothing, think you are smarter than everyone else as you make complete fools of yourselves with your arrogant condescension.Here ya go EdtheBlind...
a little posting music to keep you in the mood.
YouTube - Steamer NATCHEZ steam calliope
Y'all are nuts.
Man you are thick!But, you fail to notice that Standard Oil after trust busting and being broken up did NOT control a majority of the total market, OR a vertical monopoly of all services attached to it. It does not matter that Rockefeller owned 60% or not of Standard Oil, as long as those strangleholds in the market place are done away with.
The Sherman Anti Trust had little to do with ownership, as long as it did not control the entire market.
Oops. How's that foot taste? Little lemon pepper for the sole you're having?
Regardless, you seem to have a mad-on against the Rich, and deem yourself wiser than anyone else to say who deserves and doesn't deserve the right to do with their money as they see fit. Keep it up, buttercup. You're very entertaining right now in your colossal ignorance.
And for the record, I'm not a know-it-all. I'm a 'know-more-than-you' ...in most things it seems.
Okay, I call bullshit. Show your proof. I'm sure the Getty's and many other captains of industry of that period won't agree either.Man you are thick!But, you fail to notice that Standard Oil after trust busting and being broken up did NOT control a majority of the total market, OR a vertical monopoly of all services attached to it. It does not matter that Rockefeller owned 60% or not of Standard Oil, as long as those strangleholds in the market place are done away with.
The Sherman Anti Trust had little to do with ownership, as long as it did not control the entire market.
Oops. How's that foot taste? Little lemon pepper for the sole you're having?
Regardless, you seem to have a mad-on against the Rich, and deem yourself wiser than anyone else to say who deserves and doesn't deserve the right to do with their money as they see fit. Keep it up, buttercup. You're very entertaining right now in your colossal ignorance.
And for the record, I'm not a know-it-all. I'm a 'know-more-than-you' ...in most things it seems.
Rockefeller CONTROLLED the majority of the oil market after divestiture and his family still CONTROLS the majority of the oil market today. As I explained in another post you chose to ignore, that's why he switched to BANKING to CONTROL his empire from. Today the Rockefeller family CONTROLS Exxon, Mobile, Texaco, Chevron, etc., if that's not a monopoly then there is no such thing as a monopoly.
You may THINK you know more than me, but that doesn't make it so.
I've already explained how banks are a loophole in the anti-trust laws, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it over and over just so you can keep playing dumb.Okay, I call bullshit. Show your proof. I'm sure the Getty's and many other captains of industry of that period won't agree either.Man you are thick!But, you fail to notice that Standard Oil after trust busting and being broken up did NOT control a majority of the total market, OR a vertical monopoly of all services attached to it. It does not matter that Rockefeller owned 60% or not of Standard Oil, as long as those strangleholds in the market place are done away with.
The Sherman Anti Trust had little to do with ownership, as long as it did not control the entire market.
Oops. How's that foot taste? Little lemon pepper for the sole you're having?
Regardless, you seem to have a mad-on against the Rich, and deem yourself wiser than anyone else to say who deserves and doesn't deserve the right to do with their money as they see fit. Keep it up, buttercup. You're very entertaining right now in your colossal ignorance.
And for the record, I'm not a know-it-all. I'm a 'know-more-than-you' ...in most things it seems.
Rockefeller CONTROLLED the majority of the oil market after divestiture and his family still CONTROLS the majority of the oil market today. As I explained in another post you chose to ignore, that's why he switched to BANKING to CONTROL his empire from. Today the Rockefeller family CONTROLS Exxon, Mobile, Texaco, Chevron, etc., if that's not a monopoly then there is no such thing as a monopoly.
You may THINK you know more than me, but that doesn't make it so.
Most clever thing here is the animation.
