How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[JoeNormal]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

 

[my2¢]

This is a prime example of how evil liberalism is...

Seattle, Wash. community is in uproar after a man undressed in the women’s locker room at a local pool. The women inside the locker room at the time attempted to kick him out, but the guy refused and said “the law has changed and I have the right to be here.”

He returned to the restroom for a second time later that evening, when young girls were changing for swim practice.

Wash. man uses women's bathroom to test transgender ruling

What's anybody's opinion of the situation if that "man" was born a female, would it have then been okay?

I hate the fact that federal and some state legislatures have pushed agendas in what I see as a matter best dealt with without need of big brother's involvement.

 

[JoeNormal]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

 

[JoeNormal]

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

 

[P@triot]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

1st - the owner did not take. The owner purchased. The owner purchased supplies, inventory, tools, labor, etc. You're response is nonsensical, juvenile, asinine, immature, and just plain stupid.

2nd - you post a link to Abraham Lincoln quotes to back up your absurd quote, and yet I found not a single thing. I did a search on both "owner" and "producer" and didn't get a single hit on the entire page. So basically, now you're just lying and hoping that nobody will take the time to fact-check you.

 

[P@triot]

This is a prime example of how evil liberalism is...

Seattle, Wash. community is in uproar after a man undressed in the women’s locker room at a local pool. The women inside the locker room at the time attempted to kick him out, but the guy refused and said “the law has changed and I have the right to be here.”

He returned to the restroom for a second time later that evening, when young girls were changing for swim practice.

Wash. man uses women's bathroom to test transgender ruling

What's anybody's opinion of the situation if that "man" was born a female, would it have then been okay?

I hate the fact that federal and some state legislatures have pushed agendas in what I see as a matter best dealt with without need of big brother's involvement.

Is that always the way now in this day and age? Liberals just want the government to control everything and every one. Doesn't matter what the issue is - have government control it. Oh....unless it something like the government protecting gun rights. Well then.....THEN.....we need ignore the governments view and find another way to outlaw it.

 

[P@triot]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

There is no "redistribution" genius. Well.....until the government gets involved at the whining demand of libtards. Otherwise, there are just free men and women buying and selling products and services in the free market of their own free will. The way God intended it to be.

 

[P@triot]

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

Well that is a very special kind of stupid. How did government taking from producers, keeping and wasting 98% of what it takes, and then redistributing the remaining 2% to moochers do anything for (and I quote) "an advanced, technological society"?

Lets look at technology. Bill Gates and Paul Allen created Microsoft. The government did nothing to help them, but in fact did LOTS to harm them. They did not receive grants from the government. They did not receive free money from the government. They did not receive Solyndra money from the government. Nothing. They just went out and did it. Now, before you give the ultra ignorant "but...but.....but....they received roads, and infrastructure, and police protection from the government" - you have to understand two very important things. First, that is all local government you retard. Not federal. So it's a nonsensical statement. Second, and more important, if any of that stuff even remotely helped Microsoft, then why aren't you a billionaire? You had the same access to the roads, infrastructure, and police protection that Bill Gates and Paul Allen had. The exact same access. So did every single citizen in the U.S. So clearly that had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They built Apple out of a garage and the government did nothing to help them. Same with Michael Dell. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Ellison. The list goes on and on and on.

In a nut shell, you have nothing intelligent to say. You just make nonsensical stuff up as you go to justify your desire to be a parasite on society. Sad.

 

[JoeNormal]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

1st - the owner did not take. The owner purchased. The owner purchased supplies, inventory, tools, labor, etc. You're response is nonsensical, juvenile, asinine, immature, and just plain stupid.

2nd - you post a link to Abraham Lincoln quotes to back up your absurd quote, and yet I found not a single thing. I did a search on both "owner" and "producer" and didn't get a single hit on the entire page. So basically, now you're just lying and hoping that nobody will take the time to fact-check you.

You didn't look very hard (or maybe you're just inept).

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think my response counters his.

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

Well that is a very special kind of stupid. How did government taking from producers, keeping and wasting 98% of what it takes, and then redistributing the remaining 2% to moochers do anything for (and I quote) "an advanced, technological society"?

Lets look at technology. Bill Gates and Paul Allen created Microsoft. The government did nothing to help them, but in fact did LOTS to harm them. They did not receive grants from the government. They did not receive free money from the government. They did not receive Solyndra money from the government. Nothing. They just went out and did it. Now, before you give the ultra ignorant "but...but.....but....they received roads, and infrastructure, and police protection from the government" - you have to understand two very important things. First, that is all local government you retard. Not federal. So it's a nonsensical statement. Second, and more important, if any of that stuff even remotely helped Microsoft, then why aren't you a billionaire? You had the same access to the roads, infrastructure, and police protection that Bill Gates and Paul Allen had. The exact same access. So did every single citizen in the U.S. So clearly that had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They built Apple out of a garage and the government did nothing to help them. Same with Michael Dell. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Ellison. The list goes on and on and on.

In a nut shell, you have nothing intelligent to say. You just make nonsensical stuff up as you go to justify your desire to be a parasite on society. Sad.

Don't bring up technological advancements that you apparently know nothing about. I'm an engineer who is intimately familiar with the history of these advancements and the workings of the technologies. You'd have much more success pulling misinformation out of your ass in some other field.

 

[P@triot]

And yet, you say the same thing. How it is a counter?
Owner of tax money: Government:
Producer of tax money: Those taxed by the government

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

Well that is a very special kind of stupid. How did government taking from producers, keeping and wasting 98% of what it takes, and then redistributing the remaining 2% to moochers do anything for (and I quote) "an advanced, technological society"?

Lets look at technology. Bill Gates and Paul Allen created Microsoft. The government did nothing to help them, but in fact did LOTS to harm them. They did not receive grants from the government. They did not receive free money from the government. They did not receive Solyndra money from the government. Nothing. They just went out and did it. Now, before you give the ultra ignorant "but...but.....but....they received roads, and infrastructure, and police protection from the government" - you have to understand two very important things. First, that is all local government you retard. Not federal. So it's a nonsensical statement. Second, and more important, if any of that stuff even remotely helped Microsoft, then why aren't you a billionaire? You had the same access to the roads, infrastructure, and police protection that Bill Gates and Paul Allen had. The exact same access. So did every single citizen in the U.S. So clearly that had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They built Apple out of a garage and the government did nothing to help them. Same with Michael Dell. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Ellison. The list goes on and on and on.

In a nut shell, you have nothing intelligent to say. You just make nonsensical stuff up as you go to justify your desire to be a parasite on society. Sad.

Don't bring up technological advancements that you apparently know nothing about. I'm an engineer who is intimately familiar with the history of these advancements and the workings of the technologies. You'd have much more success pulling misinformation out of your ass in some other field.

Bwahahaha! Big "engineer" are you chief? Well lets start with this - while you're so quick to arrogantly talk about yourself when nobody asked, I see that you failed to mention one thing I said which was inaccurate. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah....because the government wasn't behind Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, or any of our other technologies. And guess what asshat? I spent the majority of my life as a technical engineer in IT. Oops.....looks like in your infinite ignorance you managed to opened your mouth to the wrong guy.

 

[P@triot]

"The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner." -Frederic Bastiat

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

1st - the owner did not take. The owner purchased. The owner purchased supplies, inventory, tools, labor, etc. You're response is nonsensical, juvenile, asinine, immature, and just plain stupid.

2nd - you post a link to Abraham Lincoln quotes to back up your absurd quote, and yet I found not a single thing. I did a search on both "owner" and "producer" and didn't get a single hit on the entire page. So basically, now you're just lying and hoping that nobody will take the time to fact-check you.

You didn't look very hard (or maybe you're just inept).

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

And how is that even remotely like your ultra ignorant comment "The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." Lincoln never used the words "owner", "can", "give", "nothing", "that", "has", "first", "been", "taken", "from", "its" or "producer". LMAO!!! You jack-ass, the only word you managed to use that Lincoln used in his quote was "THE"

Furthermore - like the typical dumb ass that you are, you completely misinterpreted everything that Lincoln said there. You're trying to apply the modern day free-market oppressed by government controlled regulations to the pre-industrial revolution model where people would in fact labor in their own private fields all day prior to harvesting the fruits of their labor. Man you are a special kind of stupid.

 

[JoeNormal]

It was a reframing of Rott's view of the most important element of production and redistribution.

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

Well that is a very special kind of stupid. How did government taking from producers, keeping and wasting 98% of what it takes, and then redistributing the remaining 2% to moochers do anything for (and I quote) "an advanced, technological society"?

Lets look at technology. Bill Gates and Paul Allen created Microsoft. The government did nothing to help them, but in fact did LOTS to harm them. They did not receive grants from the government. They did not receive free money from the government. They did not receive Solyndra money from the government. Nothing. They just went out and did it. Now, before you give the ultra ignorant "but...but.....but....they received roads, and infrastructure, and police protection from the government" - you have to understand two very important things. First, that is all local government you retard. Not federal. So it's a nonsensical statement. Second, and more important, if any of that stuff even remotely helped Microsoft, then why aren't you a billionaire? You had the same access to the roads, infrastructure, and police protection that Bill Gates and Paul Allen had. The exact same access. So did every single citizen in the U.S. So clearly that had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They built Apple out of a garage and the government did nothing to help them. Same with Michael Dell. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Ellison. The list goes on and on and on.

In a nut shell, you have nothing intelligent to say. You just make nonsensical stuff up as you go to justify your desire to be a parasite on society. Sad.

Don't bring up technological advancements that you apparently know nothing about. I'm an engineer who is intimately familiar with the history of these advancements and the workings of the technologies. You'd have much more success pulling misinformation out of your ass in some other field.

Bwahahaha! Big "engineer" are you chief? Well lets start with this - while you're so quick to arrogantly talk about yourself when nobody asked, I see that you failed to mention one thing I said which was inaccurate. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah....because the government wasn't behind Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, or any of our other technologies. And guess what asshat? I spent the majority of my life as a technical engineer in IT. Oops.....looks like in your infinite ignorance you managed to opened your mouth to the wrong guy.

Generally, the fundamental technologies that major companies have capitalized upon were born in eithe national laboratories or federally subsidized universities.

And I realize the fact that a real live engineer would give anybody like you the time of day would blow your tiny mind.

 

[P@triot]

Yes,,, for the state to redistribute wealth, it must first take it from those that produce it....

Yup, the price we pay for an advanced, technological society.

Well that is a very special kind of stupid. How did government taking from producers, keeping and wasting 98% of what it takes, and then redistributing the remaining 2% to moochers do anything for (and I quote) "an advanced, technological society"?

Lets look at technology. Bill Gates and Paul Allen created Microsoft. The government did nothing to help them, but in fact did LOTS to harm them. They did not receive grants from the government. They did not receive free money from the government. They did not receive Solyndra money from the government. Nothing. They just went out and did it. Now, before you give the ultra ignorant "but...but.....but....they received roads, and infrastructure, and police protection from the government" - you have to understand two very important things. First, that is all local government you retard. Not federal. So it's a nonsensical statement. Second, and more important, if any of that stuff even remotely helped Microsoft, then why aren't you a billionaire? You had the same access to the roads, infrastructure, and police protection that Bill Gates and Paul Allen had. The exact same access. So did every single citizen in the U.S. So clearly that had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They built Apple out of a garage and the government did nothing to help them. Same with Michael Dell. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Ellison. The list goes on and on and on.

In a nut shell, you have nothing intelligent to say. You just make nonsensical stuff up as you go to justify your desire to be a parasite on society. Sad.

Don't bring up technological advancements that you apparently know nothing about. I'm an engineer who is intimately familiar with the history of these advancements and the workings of the technologies. You'd have much more success pulling misinformation out of your ass in some other field.

Bwahahaha! Big "engineer" are you chief? Well lets start with this - while you're so quick to arrogantly talk about yourself when nobody asked, I see that you failed to mention one thing I said which was inaccurate. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah....because the government wasn't behind Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, or any of our other technologies. And guess what asshat? I spent the majority of my life as a technical engineer in IT. Oops.....looks like in your infinite ignorance you managed to opened your mouth to the wrong guy.

Generally, the fundamental technologies that major companies have capitalized upon were born in eithe national laboratories or federally subsidized universities.

And I realize the fact that a real live engineer would give anybody like you the time of day would blow your tiny mind.

Generally, arrogant liberals make stuff up as they go in attempt to push their agenda and sound intelligent. Generally, they fail at both.

History has proven time and time again that the overwhelming breakthroughs have all occurred in the private sector. Ben Franklin, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, etc. all made the biggest break throughs society has enjoyed without a single dime from government. That trend continues today - from the iPhone and the iPad by Steve Jobs and Apple, to Microsoft Windows running on over 90% of all machines across the world (including those machines used by government) and right up to today with SpaceX and Tesla from Elon Musk.

You're a moron. And the fact that you're pushing such an absurd agenda that is so easily proven wrong most likely means that you are one of those people who can't make it in the real world where people have to deliver results and thus your livelihood depends on those government subsidized laboratories or universities. I've got $100 right now that says so. Care to be honest once in your life?

 

[JoeNormal]

"The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." -JoeNormal

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

1st - the owner did not take. The owner purchased. The owner purchased supplies, inventory, tools, labor, etc. You're response is nonsensical, juvenile, asinine, immature, and just plain stupid.

2nd - you post a link to Abraham Lincoln quotes to back up your absurd quote, and yet I found not a single thing. I did a search on both "owner" and "producer" and didn't get a single hit on the entire page. So basically, now you're just lying and hoping that nobody will take the time to fact-check you.

You didn't look very hard (or maybe you're just inept).

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

And how is that even remotely like your ultra ignorant comment "The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." Lincoln never used the words "owner", "can", "give", "nothing", "that", "has", "first", "been", "taken", "from", "its" or "producer". LMAO!!! You jack-ass, the only word you managed to use that Lincoln used in his quote was "THE"

Furthermore - like the typical dumb ass that you are, you completely misinterpreted everything that Lincoln said there. You're trying to apply the modern day free-market oppressed by government controlled regulations to the pre-industrial revolution model where people would in fact labor in their own private fields all day prior to harvesting the fruits of their labor. Man you are a special kind of stupid.

Typical. You see something that flies in the face of your simplistic view of the world coming from one of the Giants of our nations history and you deny, deny, deny. Fox News has taught you well, moron.

 

[P@triot]

You realize you said the exact same thing, just from a different perspective - right?
Does this mean you agree with him or did you think your response countered his?

I think my response counters his. Abraham Lincoln agrees with me.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Labor and Work

1st - the owner did not take. The owner purchased. The owner purchased supplies, inventory, tools, labor, etc. You're response is nonsensical, juvenile, asinine, immature, and just plain stupid.

2nd - you post a link to Abraham Lincoln quotes to back up your absurd quote, and yet I found not a single thing. I did a search on both "owner" and "producer" and didn't get a single hit on the entire page. So basically, now you're just lying and hoping that nobody will take the time to fact-check you.

You didn't look very hard (or maybe you're just inept).

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

And how is that even remotely like your ultra ignorant comment "The owner can give nothing that has not first been taken from its producer." Lincoln never used the words "owner", "can", "give", "nothing", "that", "has", "first", "been", "taken", "from", "its" or "producer". LMAO!!! You jack-ass, the only word you managed to use that Lincoln used in his quote was "THE"

Furthermore - like the typical dumb ass that you are, you completely misinterpreted everything that Lincoln said there. You're trying to apply the modern day free-market oppressed by government controlled regulations to the pre-industrial revolution model where people would in fact labor in their own private fields all day prior to harvesting the fruits of their labor. Man you are a special kind of stupid.

Typical. You see something that flies in the face of your simplistic view of the world coming from one of the Giants of our nations history and you deny, deny, deny. Fox News has taught you well, moron.

Speaks volumes that even "simplistic" views are too complicated and confusing for liberals.

 

[JoeNormal]

Generally, arrogant liberals make stuff up as they go in attempt to push their agenda and sound intelligent. Generally, they fail at both.

History has proven time and time again that the overwhelming breakthroughs have all occurred in the private sector. Ben Franklin, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, etc. all made the biggest break throughs society has enjoyed without a single dime from government. That trend continues today - from the iPhone and the iPad by Steve Jobs and Apple, to Microsoft Windows running on over 90% of all machines across the world (including those machines used by government) and right up to today with SpaceX and Tesla from Elon Musk.

You're a moron. And the fact that you're pushing such an absurd agenda that is so easily proven wrong most likely means that you are one of those people who can't make it in the real world where people have to deliver results and thus your livelihood depends on those government subsidized laboratories or universities. I've got $100 right now that says so. Care to be honest once in your life?

It's fun to see a tard-level view of engineering. Kind of reminds me of a 3 year old describing the way Santa Claus does what he does. So marvelously devoid of details of HOW things get done. Let me guess: capitalism 'n' stuff.

As for Tesla, Edison, et al of course they were geniuses but you might have noticed that technology has come a long way since the era of the lone genius toiling tirelessly in his laboratory. As a matter of fact, we're about 60 or 70 years past that era. Fundamental technologies are developed in well funded facilities where mathematicians, physicists, engineers and chemists can collaborate for as long as it takes to develop them. Do you have any idea what would happen if a project were estimated to take more than 5 years in a corporate environment? The bean counters would shut it down before the first memo was sent. The only thing worse would be if they had no idea how long it might take.

I work in a corporate environment. I share responsibilities between pumping out products and developing technologies. These technologies have great value to the corporation and while some are patented and some are closely guarded proprietary secrets, none would be considered fundamental. I benefit from the technology that is developed by government funded entities.

 

[P@triot]

Generally, arrogant liberals make stuff up as they go in attempt to push their agenda and sound intelligent. Generally, they fail at both.

History has proven time and time again that the overwhelming breakthroughs have all occurred in the private sector. Ben Franklin, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, etc. all made the biggest break throughs society has enjoyed without a single dime from government. That trend continues today - from the iPhone and the iPad by Steve Jobs and Apple, to Microsoft Windows running on over 90% of all machines across the world (including those machines used by government) and right up to today with SpaceX and Tesla from Elon Musk.

You're a moron. And the fact that you're pushing such an absurd agenda that is so easily proven wrong most likely means that you are one of those people who can't make it in the real world where people have to deliver results and thus your livelihood depends on those government subsidized laboratories or universities. I've got $100 right now that says so. Care to be honest once in your life?

It's fun to see a tard-level view of engineering. Kind of reminds me of a 3 year old describing the way Santa Claus does what he does. So marvelously devoid of details of HOW things get done. Let me guess: capitalism 'n' stuff.

As for Tesla, Edison, et al of course they were geniuses but you might have noticed that technology has come a long way since the era of the lone genius toiling tirelessly in his laboratory. As a matter of fact, we're about 60 or 70 years past that era. Fundamental technologies are developed in well funded facilities where mathematicians, physicists, engineers and chemists can collaborate for as long as it takes to develop them. Do you have any idea what would happen if a project were estimated to take more than 5 years in a corporate environment? The bean counters would shut it down before the first memo was sent. The only thing worse would be if they had no idea how long it might take.

I work in a corporate environment. I share responsibilities between pumping out products and developing technologies. These technologies have great value to the corporation and while some are patented and some are closely guarded proprietary secrets, none would be considered fundamental. I benefit from the technology that is developed by government funded entities.

What's hilarious is that I started with the founding of this nation (Benjamin Franklin) and worked right up until today with Elon Musk and you were too stupid to even see it. All of the best technologies that man has ever known were invented in the private sector with out a single subsidized dollar from government. The automobile and Henry Ford? Yep. I've given the best examples proving I'm right. You've yet to give even a single example to back up your absurd position (because....well...you can't).

And here is the best part yet. Even if Mr. "Engineer" could give hundreds of examples, none of it would matter anyways as Mr. "Engineer" never bothered to actually read the U.S. Constitution. It is illegal for the federal government to take tax payer dollars and use them for anything outside of their 18 enumerated powers. And guess what genius - research is not on of their 18 enumerated powers (of course you wouldn't know that but....).