Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Rikurzhen]

allow unlimited and anonymous 'donations' (read bribes) to influence puplic officals.

You were saying something about bribery?

History suggests as the disparity in wealth between the rich minority and the vast majority increases serious cultural and political changes occur, none of which benefit the many. Guess what happens then?

Yeah, but you don't want to do a goddamned fucking thing about deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators and actually improving the bargaining power of American laborers.

Look at what happened when we had an immigration moratorium. Income inequality dropped like a stone.

You're the cause of the problem.

allow unlimited and anonymous 'donations' (read bribes) to influence puplic officals.

You were saying something about bribery?

History suggests as the disparity in wealth between the rich minority and the vast majority increases serious cultural and political changes occur, none of which benefit the many. Guess what happens then?

Yeah, but you don't want to do a goddamned fucking thing about deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators and actually improving the bargaining power of American laborers.

Look at what happened when we had an immigration moratorium. Income inequality dropped like a stone.

You're the cause of the problem.

You simply don't get it. First, put your biases aside, next, consider the panoptic persepective of political donations, not simply how major corporations lobby and spend.

Consider for example how elected officials on all levels of government - cities, counties, parishes, states and special districts - can be manipulated by special interests with promises of money or threats of withholding money.

And ads not directly supporting a candidate can be funded by anonymous money (which even foreign nations can use to manipulate policy, initiatives and laws) to their advantage alone - and many times to the disadantage of the people.

I get it. There is corruption in our political system. Why don't you get that I'm sick of the POSTURING about how evil conservatives or libertarians, like Koch, are responsible for this when the overwhelming majority of funding is coming from Unions and it goes to Democrats. Moreover, the corruption is more egregious with the Unions and the Democrats in that unions COMPEL donations from members, so a Republican union member has no choice but to ultimately donate to Democrats, those donations help get Democrats elected, the Democrats screw the public interest and generously reward public sector unions with increased pay or benefits, which in turn get laundered and returned back to Democrats as donations.

So explain to us why union funding, and IN-KIND donations like unions "volunteering" their members to work for the Democrats (nothing like that on the Republican side), are not more of a problem than NIKE donating money to Republican causes?

Lastly, no one can take criticisms of income inequality seriously when you won't take up a SOLUTION to remedy the problem. When you CHOOSE to advocate for immigrants and infiltrators then you're part of the problem and you've chosen which side of the fence you're on - you favor MORE income inequality.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No way an ultra rich person would commit millions and millions of dollars to a politician without expecting something good in return. To think otherwise is simply stupid thinking. Why the fuck else would it have been so important to get Citizens United ok'ed by the SCOTUS IF it wasn't to allow mega money into the political process for the benefit of the ultra rich? Call it bribes, donations or charity, the purpose is exactly the same. Buy political favor for the benefit of the rich donors.

Citizens United does me and mine absolutely no fucking good.

And union spending and in-kind donations do me and mine absolutely no fucking good.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I understand Capital and Labor will always be at odds, but both require the other. The current war on working men and women is unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

And the Capitalist weapon in this war is to drive down the bargaining power of labor so as to increase their own bargaining power. And what, exactly, are you doing to stop Capital from doing this and what exactly are you doing to INCREASE the bargaining power of labor.

Labor was historically stronger when there was labor scarcity. I look about and I see Labor orgasmic at the prospect of adding 20 million more Democratic voters, thus enabling these infiltrators to enter the LEGAL job market and further drive down wages for Americans. You don't want to deport them, thereby INCREASING Labor's bargaining power.

If you won't do what is necessary to help yourself, then why would you expect any help from people like me?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.

See:

Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It didn't level any playing field? Notice all the union spending and lack of corporate spending between 1989 and 2014. That WAS an UNLEVEL playing field.

 

[bripat9643]

allow unlimited and anonymous 'donations' (read bribes) to influence puplic officals.

You were saying something about bribery?

History suggests as the disparity in wealth between the rich minority and the vast majority increases serious cultural and political changes occur, none of which benefit the many. Guess what happens then?

Yeah, but you don't want to do a goddamned fucking thing about deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators and actually improving the bargaining power of American laborers.

Look at what happened when we had an immigration moratorium. Income inequality dropped like a stone.

You're the cause of the problem.

allow unlimited and anonymous 'donations' (read bribes) to influence puplic officals.

You were saying something about bribery?

History suggests as the disparity in wealth between the rich minority and the vast majority increases serious cultural and political changes occur, none of which benefit the many. Guess what happens then?

Yeah, but you don't want to do a goddamned fucking thing about deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators and actually improving the bargaining power of American laborers.

Look at what happened when we had an immigration moratorium. Income inequality dropped like a stone.

You're the cause of the problem.

You simply don't get it. First, put your biases aside, next, consider the panoptic persepective of political donations, not simply how major corporations lobby and spend.

Consider for example how elected officials on all levels of government - cities, counties, parishes, states and special districts - can be manipulated by special interests with promises of money or threats of withholding money.

And ads not directly supporting a candidate can be funded by anonymous money (which even foreign nations can use to manipulate policy, initiatives and laws) to their advantage alone - and many times to the disadantage of the people.

I get it. There is corruption in our political system. Why don't you get that I'm sick of the POSTURING about how evil conservatives or libertarians, like Koch, are responsible for this when the overwhelming majority of funding is coming from Unions and it goes to Democrats. Moreover, the corruption is more egregious with the Unions and the Democrats in that unions COMPEL donations from members, so a Republican union member has no choice but to ultimately donate to Democrats, those donations help get Democrats elected, the Democrats screw the public interest and generously reward public sector unions with increased pay or benefits, which in turn get laundered and returned back to Democrats as donations.

So explain to us why union funding, and IN-KIND donations like unions "volunteering" their members to work for the Democrats (nothing like that on the Republican side), are not more of a problem than NIKE donating money to Republican causes?

Lastly, no one can take criticisms of income inequality seriously when you won't take up a SOLUTION to remedy the problem. When you CHOOSE to advocate for immigrants and infiltrators then you're part of the problem and you've chosen which side of the fence you're on - you favor MORE income inequality.

You don't understand. Those illegal immigrants will vote Democrat once they are granted amnesty. That's good for the working man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, there are liars, damn liars and the damn liars use logical fallacies (appeal to authority, straw man and ad hominem) to hide their bias framed by ignorance.

What I support is government regulation, what I oppose is laissez faire capitalsim. What I support is a workers right to organize and bargain collectively, what I oppose are those who wish to take away this right.

I understand Capital and Labor will always be at odds, but both require the other. The current war on working men and women is unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

What I fear is our nation drifting further and further into fundamental change, from a democratic republic to a republic controlled by the very rich - that is a Plutocracy. We are much closer to become a Plutocracy (and in fact we probably have become one in light of the horrific decisions by the Roberts Court).

Nonsense. What you are is a Marxist who supports Marxist policies.

If you think we're becoming a Plutocracy, that's fine... you were shown the list of the top 20 political contributors, they mostly fund Democrats. Stop voting for Democrats, would be my suggestion. Personally, I don't think we're going to ever become a Plutocracy just as we won't ever become a Theocracy, the Constitution prevents that.

Let me explain why you are so upset over the Roberts court ruling in Citizen's... it's because corporations were given the same freedom of speech rights as unions and special interest groups who fund the Democrat Party.

Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.

See:

Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'm not parroting anyone. What does a wiki link to PACs have to do with Citizen's United? [READ THE LINK, or Remain Ignorant!] I never said Citizen's leveled any playing field, the field was already leveled by the 1st Amendment, the SCOTUS simply reaffirmed that it would remain level. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right endowed to the people and can't be stripped away because they belong to a group, which is what a corporation represents.

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

 

[kaz]

you're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

LOL, from the guy who through deep reason, logic and intellectually honesty came to the truth. Hey guys, government can solve fucking everything! Why are we doing anything at all? Government can do it all, and better! They make capitalism better, run companies better, make us freer and their shit doesn't stink! And you lecture someone about not being critical? LOL, that's a hoot.

Corporations are not people.

If you mean the articles of incorporation, that is a piece of paper. But businesses are people. And Romney is talking about that. My staff and I all do this for a living. That you think we are not people is just part of your being the arrogant, lazy, greedy douche that you are justifying plundering our work for your benefit.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief.

Corporations are comprised of people who do not relinquish certain fundamental protections by virtue of incorporating.

A corporation has the speech of its members and message protected.

 

[dblack]

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief.

Corporations are comprised of people who do not relinquish certain fundamental protections by virtue of incorporating.

A corporation has the speech of its members and message protected.

Yeah.. I don't really get what they're going for with that "corporations aren't people" line. It's like saying families aren't people, or clubs aren't people. I'm actually in agreement that the corporate charter is bullshit and needs to be re-addressed. But stripping the personal rights of people who are members of a corporation seems like the wrong way to go about it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But stripping the personal rights of people who are members of a corporation seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Or their collective message for the corporation.

"Citizens United" was about a movie painting Hillary in a poor light.

 

[Mathbud1]

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

Exactly which constituent member of a corporation is not a person?

Explain why you say that corporations are amoral.

Do you think people are amoral?

How would you describe a corporation that acted with "moral certitude?"

All good business models consider risks before acting. Explain what you mean by this: "then decide some harm is better for the bottom line."

 

[Boss]

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

Watch out there Wry, someone might mistake you for a coward hiding behind a keyboard with all those insults being hurled my way! Seems like a "wise" person once told me to not begin my posts that way.... wonder who that was?

Corporations ARE people, that's exactly what they are comprised of. They are groups of people. The First Amendment is very clear, you can't deny the right to political free speech on the basis of what group a person happens to belong to or on the basis they belong to any group. You want to deny people their right to free speech because they happen to belong to a corporation and that is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

 

[dblack]

I think that a serious discussion of why corporations should be granted privileges that other organizations are denied is long overdue. We've indulged these institutions, and their excesses, because they have been at the vanguard of our pseudo-mercantilist worldwide empire, but it was wrong to do so.

In any case, this has nothing at all to do with the OP. Government shouldn't be allowed to take over health care for the same reasons it shouldn't be allowed to take over any other areas of our lives. Government is there to protect our freedom to live as we wish, not to dictate how we must live.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The PPACA (Obamacare) did not take over health care in America, nor is it socialism. Anyone who will be turning 65 in the next few months will realize how much health care remains a golden goose for the industry, and why so much money was invested and so much propaganda was expended to convince fools that it was both a takeover and socialism.

Those nearing age 65 will be inundated with solicitations from health care providers. Be careful, and read the fine print and the pages and pages of (mostly) incomprehensible 'benefits' with limits and exclusions.

BTW, for years county hospitals have provided care for those without insurance, and those Drs., Nurses and other health care professionals are employed by the counties. Why was there no hysteria until the summer of 2010, for these hospitals which exist in every state and most counties are an example of socialism, a benign and life saving example?

The answer is simple, the industry hates competition. We can buy many medicines cheaper across the borders, south and north, but in most cases doing so is illegal. The Golden Goose is protected, not so the elder couple who may forego a meal or two for life saving meds.

 

[dblack]

The PPACA (Obamacare) did not take over health care in America, nor is it socialism. Anyone who will be turning 65 in the next few months will realize how much health care remains a golden goose for the industry, and why so much money was invested and so much propaganda was expended to convince fools that it was both a takeover and socialism.

Those nearing age 65 will be inundated with solicitations from health care providers. Be careful, and read the fine print and the pages and pages of (mostly) incomprehensible 'benefits' with limits and exclusions.

BTW, for years county hospitals have provided care for those without insurance, and those Drs., Nurses and other health care professionals are employed by the counties. Why was there no hysteria until the summer of 2010, for these hospitals which exist in every state and most counties are an example of socialism, a benign and life saving example?

The answer is simple, the industry hates competition. We can buy many medicines cheaper across the borders, south and north, but in most cases doing so is illegal. The Golden Goose is protected, not so the elder couple who may forego a meal or two for life saving meds.

Regardless, it does take away our freedom to decide for ourselves how to finance our health care, dictating that we play ball with insurance companies (arguably, the institution most responsible for spiraling health care costs) whether we want to or not. I really don't understand how Democrats can sleep at night after foisting this on the nation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

Watch out there Wry, someone might mistake you for a coward hiding behind a keyboard with all those insults being hurled my way! Seems like a "wise" person once told me to not begin my posts that way.... wonder who that was?

Corporations ARE people, that's exactly what they are comprised of. They are groups of people. The First Amendment is very clear, you can't deny the right to political free speech on the basis of what group a person happens to belong to or on the basis they belong to any group. You want to deny people their right to free speech because they happen to belong to a corporation and that is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

I have evidence that you're all of what I posted; you have none to convict me of Marxism.

 

[Boss]

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

Watch out there Wry, someone might mistake you for a coward hiding behind a keyboard with all those insults being hurled my way! Seems like a "wise" person once told me to not begin my posts that way.... wonder who that was?

Corporations ARE people, that's exactly what they are comprised of. They are groups of people. The First Amendment is very clear, you can't deny the right to political free speech on the basis of what group a person happens to belong to or on the basis they belong to any group. You want to deny people their right to free speech because they happen to belong to a corporation and that is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

I have evidence that you're all of what I posted; you have none to convict me of Marxism.

Funny, you've not presented a shred of evidence on any of the allegations you continue to make. I posted your opening comment which is purely Marxism. I even posted the definition of Marxism so you wouldn't be confused.

You continue to promote Marxism, the last post you made was about county hospitals where people without insurance are treated and the doctors and nurses are paid by the county. So you are consistent with your promotion of Marxism and Marxist policies, you defend them, you advocate them and you see nothing wrong with them.

Subsequently, you've posted nothing to show that I am A.) Dumb B.) A concrete thinker C.) Not a critical thinker D.) Stupid E.) Partisan hack F.) Presenting logical fallacy G.) Parroting.

 

[boedicca]

LOL, there are liars, damn liars and the damn liars use logical fallacies (appeal to authority, straw man and ad hominem) to hide their bias framed by ignorance.

What I support is government regulation, what I oppose is laissez faire capitalsim. What I support is a workers right to organize and bargain collectively, what I oppose are those who wish to take away this right.

I understand Capital and Labor will always be at odds, but both require the other. The current war on working men and women is unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

What I fear is our nation drifting further and further into fundamental change, from a democratic republic to a republic controlled by the very rich - that is a Plutocracy. We are much closer to become a Plutocracy (and in fact we probably have become one in light of the horrific decisions by the Roberts Court).

Nonsense. What you are is a Marxist who supports Marxist policies.

If you think we're becoming a Plutocracy, that's fine... you were shown the list of the top 20 political contributors, they mostly fund Democrats. Stop voting for Democrats, would be my suggestion. Personally, I don't think we're going to ever become a Plutocracy just as we won't ever become a Theocracy, the Constitution prevents that.

Let me explain why you are so upset over the Roberts court ruling in Citizen's... it's because corporations were given the same freedom of speech rights as unions and special interest groups who fund the Democrat Party.

Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.

See:

Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'm not parroting anyone. What does a wiki link to PACs have to do with Citizen's United? [READ THE LINK, or Remain Ignorant!] I never said Citizen's leveled any playing field, the field was already leveled by the 1st Amendment, the SCOTUS simply reaffirmed that it would remain level. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right endowed to the people and can't be stripped away because they belong to a group, which is what a corporation represents.

You're as dumb as Stephanie and as obnoxious as Rabbi(t). You're a concrete thinker, unable to critically think through issues and can't (or so it seems) consider all their parts and elements; which is why you parrot right wing propaganda.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

To debate anything with you is to become a character in a Kafka novel, or to feel as does Bert when he listens to Ernie (Bert bangs his head on the desk).

You are an utter loon.

Get help. ObamaCare is there for you.

 

[Boss]

The PPACA (Obamacare) did not take over health care in America, nor is it socialism.

What Obamacare did not do is anything to control costs, make healthcare more available or improve the quality. We were lied to about being able to keep our insurance and doctors, and every aspect of it is designed to push us into socialized (single payer) healthcare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The PPACA (Obamacare) did not take over health care in America, nor is it socialism. Anyone who will be turning 65 in the next few months will realize how much health care remains a golden goose for the industry, and why so much money was invested and so much propaganda was expended to convince fools that it was both a takeover and socialism.

Those nearing age 65 will be inundated with solicitations from health care providers. Be careful, and read the fine print and the pages and pages of (mostly) incomprehensible 'benefits' with limits and exclusions.

BTW, for years county hospitals have provided care for those without insurance, and those Drs., Nurses and other health care professionals are employed by the counties. Why was there no hysteria until the summer of 2010, for these hospitals which exist in every state and most counties are an example of socialism, a benign and life saving example?

The answer is simple, the industry hates competition. We can buy many medicines cheaper across the borders, south and north, but in most cases doing so is illegal. The Golden Goose is protected, not so the elder couple who may forego a meal or two for life saving meds.

Regardless, it does take away our freedom to decide for ourselves how to finance our health care, dictating that we play ball with insurance companies (arguably, the institution most responsible for spiraling health care costs) whether we want to or not. I really don't understand how Democrats can sleep at night after foisting this on the nation.

Really? Do you think most Democrats supported giving in to the insurance industry? Health care reform has been on the plate for over a century, no one believed reform would be easy and not messy. But, what exists today is better than what existed before, and time will tell if it can be improved, or if the GOP will continue to demand its repeal.