What exactly does the "Left" want?

[martybegan]

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities,

Holy shit! Did you really just say that?

How positively post-Marxist of you.

it is not post-marxist to see those inequalities exist, it IS post marxist to decide that those inequalties must be eliminated by massive goverment control.

 

[8537]

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities,

Holy shit! Did you really just say that?

How positively post-Marxist of you.

it is not post-marxist to see those inequalities exist, it IS post marxist to decide that those inequalties must be eliminated by massive goverment control.

It is vulgar Marxism to believe that human inequalities stem from economic inequalities.

 

[martybegan]

What a pile of right wing bullshit. It's not about 'wealth' inequalities. It's about HUMAN inequalities. I don't have a problem with anyone making a lot of money, as long as they don't get rich by making other people poor, or cause harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment.

There is a HUGE amount of socialism and welfare programs in America...for corporations. And We, the People pay THEIR bills with our money, our health and our lives.

Two great Democrats said it best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities, so you both proved my point, and called it bullshit at the same time. Your statement ALSO proves my point as the whole Truman quote is basically what I said boiled down into 1 statement, goverment balancing economic inequality.

And for all the benefits the goverment gives to corportations, there are just as many regulations, taxes, fees and other impediments that make doing business more expensive, than the benefits make doing business less expensive.

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

I always love people who start off with ad hominem attacks, it means they either dont really believe 100% in what they are saying, or that they aren't smart enough to really understand what I am saying.

It is a simple fact that our society impacts the environment, all societies do. hell, most pre modern societies have a greater local impact on the environment (slash burn agriculture, lack of sanitation) but the earlier lower human numbers hid this.

All the environmental arguments that delve into cost externalization and free market regulation of pollution are merely smoke screens to get AWAY from a free market, by regulating the crap out of anything those of an evironmental bent do not like.

And still you really dont address my original answer to the Op's question. Also try to remember I am generalizing about "the left," and not saying any specific person has these exact beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Holy shit! Did you really just say that?

How positively post-Marxist of you.

it is not post-marxist to see those inequalities exist, it IS post marxist to decide that those inequalties must be eliminated by massive goverment control.

It is vulgar Marxism to believe that human inequalities stem from economic inequalities.

Again, it isnt. Even liberatrians recognize ones economic status can lead to differences in social status, what makes one a marxist is saying you can eliminate this by massive government control of everything. You make a statement, and then don't back it up.

 

[8537]

it is not post-marxist to see those inequalities exist, it IS post marxist to decide that those inequalties must be eliminated by massive goverment control.

It is vulgar Marxism to believe that human inequalities stem from economic inequalities.

Again, it isnt.

you can deny that until the cows come home, but you'll be wrong.

Even liberatrians recognize ones economic status can lead to differences in social status,

Which is not at ALL what you said. You said, definitively, that human inequalities stem from economic inequalities.

what makes one a marxist is saying you can eliminate this by massive government control of everything.

No, what makes one a marxist is a belief that human inequality is primarily a product of economic inequality. State involvement is not required to believe that.

Listen, perhaps you misspoke. Perhaps you meant to qualify your statement or you didn't fully consider the implications of the statement you made. Or perhaps you really agree with the Marxists. In any event, feel free to clarify.

 

[Bfgrn]

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities,

Holy shit! Did you really just say that?

How positively post-Marxist of you.

it is not post-marxist to see those inequalities exist, it IS post marxist to decide that those inequalties must be eliminated by massive goverment control.

Ah, the 'all or none' choice. Polarized thinking is always proof of the low cognitive ability of a right wing pea brain. Well, I am against MASSIVE government control. But I am equally against NO government control. How about EFFECTIVE government regulations and consumer protections? Is THAT too hard to understand?

 

[Wicked Jester]

What a pile of right wing bullshit. It's not about 'wealth' inequalities. It's about HUMAN inequalities. I don't have a problem with anyone making a lot of money, as long as they don't get rich by making other people poor, or cause harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment.

There is a HUGE amount of socialism and welfare programs in America...for corporations. And We, the People pay THEIR bills with our money, our health and our lives.

Two great Democrats said it best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities, so you both proved my point, and called it bullshit at the same time. Your statement ALSO proves my point as the whole Truman quote is basically what I said boiled down into 1 statement, goverment balancing economic inequality.

And for all the benefits the goverment gives to corportations, there are just as many regulations, taxes, fees and other impediments that make doing business more expensive, than the benefits make doing business less expensive.

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

Yeah!.......whatever!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_JPcBwYGmo]YouTube - Tree hugging moonbats crying over trees[/ame]

 

[RDD_1210]

Your act is growing old and tired. Maybe it's time for a new routine.

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION:

You thoroughly kicked my ass yet again. Maybe it's time you leave me alone and stop embarrasing me!

End of OFFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Yep, this is rdd's m.o. He also will cut and run when he knows he's been pwn'd.

Link me to one thread where I did such a thing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities, so you both proved my point, and called it bullshit at the same time. Your statement ALSO proves my point as the whole Truman quote is basically what I said boiled down into 1 statement, goverment balancing economic inequality.

And for all the benefits the goverment gives to corportations, there are just as many regulations, taxes, fees and other impediments that make doing business more expensive, than the benefits make doing business less expensive.

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

I always love people who start off with ad hominem attacks, it means they either dont really believe 100% in what they are saying, or that they aren't smart enough to really understand what I am saying.

It is a simple fact that our society impacts the environment, all societies do. hell, most pre modern societies have a greater local impact on the environment (slash burn agriculture, lack of sanitation) but the earlier lower human numbers hid this.

All the environmental arguments that delve into cost externalization and free market regulation of pollution are merely smoke screens to get AWAY from a free market, by regulating the crap out of anything those of an evironmental bent do not like.

And still you really dont address my original answer to the Op's question. Also try to remember I am generalizing about "the left," and not saying any specific person has these exact beliefs.

It is not 'ad hominem'...I completely answered your false arguments. I just added proper pretext.

You are confusing cost externalization of FOR profit polluters with the internalized costs every community, society or country must pay.

The cost externalizing polluters get to keep and increase ALL of THEIR profit by making everyone around them poorer because they dumping THEIR costs on others.

 

[Bfgrn]

Guess what, those human inequalities stem from economic inequalities, so you both proved my point, and called it bullshit at the same time. Your statement ALSO proves my point as the whole Truman quote is basically what I said boiled down into 1 statement, goverment balancing economic inequality.

And for all the benefits the goverment gives to corportations, there are just as many regulations, taxes, fees and other impediments that make doing business more expensive, than the benefits make doing business less expensive.

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

Yeah!.......whatever!
YouTube - Tree hugging moonbats crying over trees

Hey, I often wondered...if God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians 'tree huggers'?

 

[Meister]

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

Yeah!.......whatever!
YouTube - Tree hugging moonbats crying over trees

Hey, I often wondered...if God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians 'tree huggers'?

Your actually looking for an answer to your question?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah!.......whatever!
YouTube - Tree hugging moonbats crying over trees

Hey, I often wondered...if God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians 'tree huggers'?

Your actually looking for an answer to your question?

No, my question is answered by the actions of 'CONSERVE-ative Christians', the modern day Pharisee.

 

[westwall]

And Hitler was an eloquent, charismatic speaker promising change just like Obama, blah blah, blah......

You storing up food for when the revolution begins?

Of course not. I have a supply of food and water because I live in earthquake country so that in the event of an emergency when the rest of the people are starving my family is well taken care of. That is called responsibility. What will you do if there is an emergency?

And try leaving the silly nonsense at the door next time. Try reading a little about the world and how it operates instead of calling people names...you may actually learn something.

Silly nonsense at the door? THIS, coming from the guy making Nazi comparisons! That's a good one!!!

Instead of reading about the world, maybe you might want to venture out and actually experience it. Just a thought.

I have lived and worked in Asia, Australia, Africa, Eastern Europe and some of the more depressing parts of Africa! Where have you been? A little ride on the El?

It wasn't me that said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" but I sure do believe the sentiment. So read some history and maybe you won't come across like such an ass.

 

[westwall]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

We want our country back!

Great! go back to Venezuela or Cuba. Just leave the US alone!

 

[Charles_Main]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

We want our country back!

Only about 25% of Americans are on the Far left. So it is not just YOUR COUNTRY.

 

[martybegan]

No pea brain, human inequalities don't stem from economic inequalities, unless someone is getting rich by making other people poor, causing harm to humans, God's creatures or our environment. Human inequalities manifest in bankruptcies, illness and in DEATH. Do you understand what cost externalization is? Pollution is a perfect example. When a corporation pollutes, they are circumventing the rules of a free market. They are in effect sending everyone a bill to cover THEIR costs. And We, the People pay that bill through medical bills, lower property values, illnesses and deaths. The 'market' has no correction for fatalities because it can NEVER reverse death.

I always love people who start off with ad hominem attacks, it means they either dont really believe 100% in what they are saying, or that they aren't smart enough to really understand what I am saying.

It is a simple fact that our society impacts the environment, all societies do. hell, most pre modern societies have a greater local impact on the environment (slash burn agriculture, lack of sanitation) but the earlier lower human numbers hid this.

All the environmental arguments that delve into cost externalization and free market regulation of pollution are merely smoke screens to get AWAY from a free market, by regulating the crap out of anything those of an evironmental bent do not like.

And still you really dont address my original answer to the Op's question. Also try to remember I am generalizing about "the left," and not saying any specific person has these exact beliefs.

It is not 'ad hominem'...I completely answered your false arguments. I just added proper pretext.

You are confusing cost externalization of FOR profit polluters with the internalized costs every community, society or country must pay.

The cost externalizing polluters get to keep and increase ALL of THEIR profit by making everyone around them poorer because they dumping THEIR costs on others.

You called me a pea-brain. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. and you didnt answer anything, you just ignored what I said and substituted your own beliefs as a counter to mine. my arguments may be false in your exact case, but not in general. My interpretation of what leftist believe applies to a large portion of the left.

As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations pollution control to a degree is included in the COST of a manufactured item, not its profit. Companies will attempt to maintain a profit margin regardless of how much regulation you dump on them. Short of regulating the AMOUNT of profit a company can make, you cannot stop them from passing on the costs of whatever cost externalizing ponzi scheme you try to implement. So, in the end you end up forcing the CONSUMER to carry the weight of increased cost, not the company.

 

[Bfgrn]

I always love people who start off with ad hominem attacks, it means they either dont really believe 100% in what they are saying, or that they aren't smart enough to really understand what I am saying.

It is a simple fact that our society impacts the environment, all societies do. hell, most pre modern societies have a greater local impact on the environment (slash burn agriculture, lack of sanitation) but the earlier lower human numbers hid this.

All the environmental arguments that delve into cost externalization and free market regulation of pollution are merely smoke screens to get AWAY from a free market, by regulating the crap out of anything those of an evironmental bent do not like.

And still you really dont address my original answer to the Op's question. Also try to remember I am generalizing about "the left," and not saying any specific person has these exact beliefs.

It is not 'ad hominem'...I completely answered your false arguments. I just added proper pretext.

You are confusing cost externalization of FOR profit polluters with the internalized costs every community, society or country must pay.

The cost externalizing polluters get to keep and increase ALL of THEIR profit by making everyone around them poorer because they dumping THEIR costs on others.

You called me a pea-brain. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. and you didnt answer anything, you just ignored what I said and substituted your own beliefs as a counter to mine. my arguments may be false in your exact case, but not in general. My interpretation of what leftist believe applies to a large portion of the left.

As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations pollution control to a degree is included in the COST of a manufactured item, not its profit. Companies will attempt to maintain a profit margin regardless of how much regulation you dump on them. Short of regulating the AMOUNT of profit a company can make, you cannot stop them from passing on the costs of whatever cost externalizing ponzi scheme you try to implement. So, in the end you end up forcing the CONSUMER to carry the weight of increased cost, not the company.

I didn't substitute anything, you are too obtuse to be able to differentiate between natural costs a society incurs (i.e. sanitation) and unnatural costs a society is burdened with.

'As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations on pollution'...society incurs a COST of around 4 trillion dollars PER YEAR.

The biggest threat to 'America as we know it' is not too much government, it is ineffective government control of multinational corporations. Entities that have NO allegiance to America, no desire to create or participate in a true free market or any intentions to play by any rules based on morality or ethics.

The biggest change the failed Reagan revolution brought about is rampant 'regulatory capture', where teams of corporate lawyers are allowed to WRITE LAWS that solely benefit them, by corrupt legislators. WHY do you think credit card applications went from one or two pages to 30 pages of legalese that even a lawyer has a hard time understanding?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of corporate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

When Good Corporations Go Bad

Here is some more education for pea brains...

http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/pdfs/papers/Warren/CH_Middle_Class_Final.pdf

 

[martybegan]

It is not 'ad hominem'...I completely answered your false arguments. I just added proper pretext.

You are confusing cost externalization of FOR profit polluters with the internalized costs every community, society or country must pay.

The cost externalizing polluters get to keep and increase ALL of THEIR profit by making everyone around them poorer because they dumping THEIR costs on others.

You called me a pea-brain. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. and you didnt answer anything, you just ignored what I said and substituted your own beliefs as a counter to mine. my arguments may be false in your exact case, but not in general. My interpretation of what leftist believe applies to a large portion of the left.

As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations pollution control to a degree is included in the COST of a manufactured item, not its profit. Companies will attempt to maintain a profit margin regardless of how much regulation you dump on them. Short of regulating the AMOUNT of profit a company can make, you cannot stop them from passing on the costs of whatever cost externalizing ponzi scheme you try to implement. So, in the end you end up forcing the CONSUMER to carry the weight of increased cost, not the company.

I didn't substitute anything, you are too obtuse to be able to differentiate between natural costs a society incurs (i.e. sanitation) and unnatural costs a society is burdened with.

'As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations on pollution'...society incurs a COST of around 4 trillion dollars PER YEAR.

The biggest threat to 'America as we know it' is not too much government, it is ineffective government control of multinational corporations. Entities that have NO allegiance to America, no desire to create or participate in a true free market or any intentions to play by any rules based on morality or ethics.

The biggest change the failed Reagan revolution brought about is rampant 'regulatory capture', where teams of corporate lawyers are allowed to WRITE LAWS that solely benefit them, by corrupt legislators. WHY do you think credit card applications went from one or two pages to 30 pages of legalese that even a lawyer has a hard time understanding?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of corporate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

When Good Corporations Go Bad

Here is some more education for pea brains...

http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/pdfs/papers/Warren/CH_Middle_Class_Final.pdf

Ah, copypasta, I like mine with marinara sauce.

And I disagree with the point that goverments are less dangerous than corporations because they are nominally for the public trust. That only applies to a true democratic system. Corporations are regulated, and i know you claim ineffectively, but still regulated. Nothing regulates the goverment except the actions of those that are governed, and then only with great effort and cost.

So fine, if you are so against corporations in general propose a system for maintaining our standard of living, and removing this threat you see a so dire to our existance.

 

[Oddball]

You'll note that Jethro has very few opinions of his own, other than "corp'ration bad...gubmint great" and "me smart...you pea brain".

The rest is pretty much copy-pasty and marginally relevant quotations.

 

[rdean]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

The right knows what we want. They are ALWAYS telling us what we want.