Liberals....Come To The Marketplace

[PoliticalChic]

Have you no shame?

But....since you are here, let me offer you the help you so sorely require....

"After the first lies, moreover, others can come more easily. Psychological barriers wear down; lies seem more necessary, less reprehensible; the ability to make moral distinctions can coarsen; the liar's perception of his chances of being caught may warp. These changes can affect his behavior in subtle ways; even if he isn't found out he will then be less trusted than those of unquestioned honesty. And it is inevitable that more frequent lies do increase the chance tht some will be discovered.

...even if the liar has no personal sense of loss of integrity from his deceitful practices, he will surely regret the damage to his credibility which their discovery brings about.

...once his word is no longer trusted, he will be left with greatly decreased power....."
"What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators"
edited by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Michael Wheeler p. 84

Reform yourself....you'll be the better for it.

I think I'll wait for the post-Trump update on lies since he has rewritten the rules on veracity.

You've waited too long already.

"These risks are increased by the fact that so few lies are solitary ones. It is easy, a wit observed, to tell a lie, but hard to tell only one. The first lie "must be thatched with another or it will rain through." More and more lies may come to be needed; the liar always has more mending to do. And the strains on him become greater each time- many have noted that it takes an excellent memory to keep one's untruths in good repair and disentangles. The sheer energy the liar has to devote to shoring them up is energy that honest people can dispose of freely."

Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life
By Sissela Bok. p. 25

 

[alang1216]

please, why don't they allow businesses to go in in black neighborhoods? Alderman are always voting them down. Calling the businesses racists. It is the loudest thing they do, is cry rasist all the time, it looks like they have the blacks backs while they are stabbing them in the back instead. saddd.

Can you cite an example?

sure, they wanted to open a walmart.

Crain's Chicago Business

"News of Target's plan to open a store in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood brought back memories of Walmart's debut in the North Side enclave.

Righteous anger echoed through Lakeview when Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it was coming to the neighborhood back in 2011. Target's impending arrival appears to have sparked no such opposition, according to Bennett Lawson, chief of staff to Ald. Tom Tunney of Lakeview's 44th Ward.

As my colleague Micah Maidenberg reported on Nov. 12, Target Corp. plans to open a TargetExpress store at Belmont and Ashland avenues, on the western edge of Lakeview. TargetExpress is a smaller version of the big-box stores the Minneapolis-based discount retailer operates in suburban locations. The format is roughly comparable to that of the WalMart Neighborhood Market."

The links you supplied didn't support your assertions at all. Also, aren't many political posts in Chicago held by Blacks? Seems like they would have objected even if they were Democrats.

Sure it does, offer up why you think it doesn’t? That’s what one does to debate.

i looked at your first link and it says the Chicago neighborhood wanted a Target but not a Wal-mart because it had a better image. Doesn't even address your question "why don't they allow businesses to go in in black neighborhoods?" since they obviously wanted Target. Why do you think it does support your point?

 

[alang1216]

Have you no shame?

But....since you are here, let me offer you the help you so sorely require....

"After the first lies, moreover, others can come more easily. Psychological barriers wear down; lies seem more necessary, less reprehensible; the ability to make moral distinctions can coarsen; the liar's perception of his chances of being caught may warp. These changes can affect his behavior in subtle ways; even if he isn't found out he will then be less trusted than those of unquestioned honesty. And it is inevitable that more frequent lies do increase the chance tht some will be discovered.

...even if the liar has no personal sense of loss of integrity from his deceitful practices, he will surely regret the damage to his credibility which their discovery brings about.

...once his word is no longer trusted, he will be left with greatly decreased power....."
"What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators"
edited by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Michael Wheeler p. 84

Reform yourself....you'll be the better for it.

I think I'll wait for the post-Trump update on lies since he has rewritten the rules on veracity.

You've waited too long already.

"These risks are increased by the fact that so few lies are solitary ones. It is easy, a wit observed, to tell a lie, but hard to tell only one. The first lie "must be thatched with another or it will rain through." More and more lies may come to be needed; the liar always has more mending to do. And the strains on him become greater each time- many have noted that it takes an excellent memory to keep one's untruths in good repair and disentangles. The sheer energy the liar has to devote to shoring them up is energy that honest people can dispose of freely."

Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life
By Sissela Bok. p. 25

From Art of the Deal:
"What the bulldozers and dump trucks did wasn’t important, I said, so long as they did a lot of it."

Trump was talking about a stunt he pulled in 1982, when he owned a piece of land along the Atlantic City boardwalk and wanted Holiday Inn to partner with him on the construction of a casino.

Contrary to his representations to Holiday Inn, hardly any construction had taken place on the site, and he was concerned the company would decline to invest once they saw what was basically a plot of empty land.

So in advance of a site visit by Holiday Inn executives, he directed his construction manager to hire dozens of pieces of heavy equipment to move dirt around on the site, digging holes and filling them back up if necessary.

 

[MPS777]

"This statement is mostly true and denying it is a rewriting of history. A lie. Communism is the extreme left. Far more extreme than today's liberals. The Nazis were the extreme right."
As usual, you couldn't be more incorrect.
Let's prove it with a short quiz.
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.
They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.
Nazism Communism Socialism Fascism Progressivism Liberalism
How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

I’m just curious if you are fully opposed to “a form of command and control big government”, “the collective over the individual”, or “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”, etc. I'd like to know your thoughts on what specific policy positions “conservatism” encompasses in your mind. If you'd answer a few questions we'd have a better idea of what ideas you're bringing to the “marketplace”..

You seem to believe that “the individual” interest should reign supreme. Should any individual be allowed to consume and sell any drug without restriction? If restrictions should apply, is it not the collectivist “state” that would use its monopoly of force to deny that individual’s freedom?

If individual and economic freedom reigns supreme, should prostitution be fully legal everywhere?

If property rights are preeminent, should an individual be allowed to dump pollutants into their own property without restriction? What if those pollutants seep into other peoples air and water supply and some of those other people die as a result of that toxic pollution, is that just a price we must pay for freedom?

Does an individual’s rights begin at the moment of conception; and if so should a rape victim who takes a “morning after pill” be punished for murder? Is it the collectivist state that would exercise its monopoly of force to carry out the punishment of aforementioned rape victim?

Why do so many “conservatives” seem to think heterosexual people should have rights that non-heterosexual people shouldn’t have? Do you think conservativism is different from libertarianism?

Oh and I see you appear to believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism. Do you believe all symbols of the confederacy represent racism?

>>>>3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
>>>>5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?

I don’t think it was “the left” that was solely in charge as the US government and US culture conquered the lands upon which it resides today. The decimation of indigenous people and their culture could easily be described as genocide. I mean, who do you think was in charge of the US government during wounded knee? Oppression, depriving people of a living… were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson left wing or right wing? And those “protected classes” you bemoan are what the government uses to enforce civil rights in employment, specifically so certain people can’t be denied a living.

Did you take the 'quiz' to which you linked?

If not, why not?

On drugs.. I believe that the government should be able place restrictions on some substances. I accept that this is a collectivist decision that must be enforced by the collective. Do you think the government should be able to place restrictions on some substances?

On environmental regulation.. Yes I believe in them. I’m willing to allow the collective to prohibit an individual from dumping large amounts of their own privately produced benzene into their own private property. What side would you be on, the collective or the private individual?

On abortion.. I could probably get behind the Republican plan that’s been passed by the House, but I haven’t read it verbatim yet, so I can’t make any guarantees. I do agree though that at a certain point in the pregnancy some “due process” rights must be granted to the fetus. They set an arbitrary date of 20 weeks.. fine, I’ll accept the moral ambiguity that comes with that 20 week date. How about you, I’ve heard many “conservatives” say that full rights should be granted at the instant of fertilization, is that what you believe? And remember that some pretty awful predicaments can and have occurred. Women being kidnapped and tortured over many days.. then they escape. She might have a discussion with her doctor about a 1 week old embryo within her. To some people that’s an innocent 1 week old embryo, and if it’s “murdered” the full force of the collective should be brought down to punish the murderer. What say you?

How about education, should the collective be able to take money from an individual in order to subsidize the education of another person’s child? If you’re against collectivism, I do hope you’re arguing for the complete abolition of public education. Oh and also public fire departments, you’d have to be a collectivist to support those.. they can be a private free-market enterprise. In the great and righteous fight against collectivism, you must be calling for the abolition of public fire departments.

Oh and I do find it interesting that you’ve deemed confederate symbology racist, do you mind explaining why?

With enough prying, one can expose the inner authoritarian collectivist in most “conservatives”.

 

[jc456]

please, why don't they allow businesses to go in in black neighborhoods? Alderman are always voting them down. Calling the businesses racists. It is the loudest thing they do, is cry rasist all the time, it looks like they have the blacks backs while they are stabbing them in the back instead. saddd.

Can you cite an example?

sure, they wanted to open a walmart.

Crain's Chicago Business

"News of Target's plan to open a store in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood brought back memories of Walmart's debut in the North Side enclave.

Righteous anger echoed through Lakeview when Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it was coming to the neighborhood back in 2011. Target's impending arrival appears to have sparked no such opposition, according to Bennett Lawson, chief of staff to Ald. Tom Tunney of Lakeview's 44th Ward.

As my colleague Micah Maidenberg reported on Nov. 12, Target Corp. plans to open a TargetExpress store at Belmont and Ashland avenues, on the western edge of Lakeview. TargetExpress is a smaller version of the big-box stores the Minneapolis-based discount retailer operates in suburban locations. The format is roughly comparable to that of the WalMart Neighborhood Market."

The links you supplied didn't support your assertions at all. Also, aren't many political posts in Chicago held by Blacks? Seems like they would have objected even if they were Democrats.

Sure it does, offer up why you think it doesn’t? That’s what one does to debate.

i looked at your first link and it says the Chicago neighborhood wanted a Target but not a Wal-mart because it had a better image. Doesn't even address your question "why don't they allow businesses to go in in black neighborhoods?" since they obviously wanted Target. Why do you think it does support your point?

In 2011 target wasn’t in the picture, Walmart was. So what is the excuse for not allowing business to put people to work then, not today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you no shame?

But....since you are here, let me offer you the help you so sorely require....

"After the first lies, moreover, others can come more easily. Psychological barriers wear down; lies seem more necessary, less reprehensible; the ability to make moral distinctions can coarsen; the liar's perception of his chances of being caught may warp. These changes can affect his behavior in subtle ways; even if he isn't found out he will then be less trusted than those of unquestioned honesty. And it is inevitable that more frequent lies do increase the chance tht some will be discovered.

...even if the liar has no personal sense of loss of integrity from his deceitful practices, he will surely regret the damage to his credibility which their discovery brings about.

...once his word is no longer trusted, he will be left with greatly decreased power....."
"What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators"
edited by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Michael Wheeler p. 84

Reform yourself....you'll be the better for it.

I think I'll wait for the post-Trump update on lies since he has rewritten the rules on veracity.

You've waited too long already.

"These risks are increased by the fact that so few lies are solitary ones. It is easy, a wit observed, to tell a lie, but hard to tell only one. The first lie "must be thatched with another or it will rain through." More and more lies may come to be needed; the liar always has more mending to do. And the strains on him become greater each time- many have noted that it takes an excellent memory to keep one's untruths in good repair and disentangles. The sheer energy the liar has to devote to shoring them up is energy that honest people can dispose of freely."

Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life
By Sissela Bok. p. 25

From Art of the Deal:
"What the bulldozers and dump trucks did wasn’t important, I said, so long as they did a lot of it."

Trump was talking about a stunt he pulled in 1982, when he owned a piece of land along the Atlantic City boardwalk and wanted Holiday Inn to partner with him on the construction of a casino.

Contrary to his representations to Holiday Inn, hardly any construction had taken place on the site, and he was concerned the company would decline to invest once they saw what was basically a plot of empty land.

So in advance of a site visit by Holiday Inn executives, he directed his construction manager to hire dozens of pieces of heavy equipment to move dirt around on the site, digging holes and filling them back up if necessary.

From the most popular book ever written....and meant particularly for you....

Jeremiah 9:3 They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, says the LORD.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"This statement is mostly true and denying it is a rewriting of history. A lie. Communism is the extreme left. Far more extreme than today's liberals. The Nazis were the extreme right."
As usual, you couldn't be more incorrect.
Let's prove it with a short quiz.
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.
They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.
Nazism Communism Socialism Fascism Progressivism Liberalism
How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

I’m just curious if you are fully opposed to “a form of command and control big government”, “the collective over the individual”, or “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”, etc. I'd like to know your thoughts on what specific policy positions “conservatism” encompasses in your mind. If you'd answer a few questions we'd have a better idea of what ideas you're bringing to the “marketplace”..

You seem to believe that “the individual” interest should reign supreme. Should any individual be allowed to consume and sell any drug without restriction? If restrictions should apply, is it not the collectivist “state” that would use its monopoly of force to deny that individual’s freedom?

If individual and economic freedom reigns supreme, should prostitution be fully legal everywhere?

If property rights are preeminent, should an individual be allowed to dump pollutants into their own property without restriction? What if those pollutants seep into other peoples air and water supply and some of those other people die as a result of that toxic pollution, is that just a price we must pay for freedom?

Does an individual’s rights begin at the moment of conception; and if so should a rape victim who takes a “morning after pill” be punished for murder? Is it the collectivist state that would exercise its monopoly of force to carry out the punishment of aforementioned rape victim?

Why do so many “conservatives” seem to think heterosexual people should have rights that non-heterosexual people shouldn’t have? Do you think conservativism is different from libertarianism?

Oh and I see you appear to believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism. Do you believe all symbols of the confederacy represent racism?

>>>>3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
>>>>5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?

I don’t think it was “the left” that was solely in charge as the US government and US culture conquered the lands upon which it resides today. The decimation of indigenous people and their culture could easily be described as genocide. I mean, who do you think was in charge of the US government during wounded knee? Oppression, depriving people of a living… were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson left wing or right wing? And those “protected classes” you bemoan are what the government uses to enforce civil rights in employment, specifically so certain people can’t be denied a living.

Did you take the 'quiz' to which you linked?

If not, why not?

On drugs.. I believe that the government should be able place restrictions on some substances. I accept that this is a collectivist decision that must be enforced by the collective. Do you think the government should be able to place restrictions on some substances?

On environmental regulation.. Yes I believe in them. I’m willing to allow the collective to prohibit an individual from dumping large amounts of their own privately produced benzene into their own private property. What side would you be on, the collective or the private individual?

On abortion.. I could probably get behind the Republican plan that’s been passed by the House, but I haven’t read it verbatim yet, so I can’t make any guarantees. I do agree though that at a certain point in the pregnancy some “due process” rights must be granted to the fetus. They set an arbitrary date of 20 weeks.. fine, I’ll accept the moral ambiguity that comes with that 20 week date. How about you, I’ve heard many “conservatives” say that full rights should be granted at the instant of fertilization, is that what you believe? And remember that some pretty awful predicaments can and have occurred. Women being kidnapped and tortured over many days.. then they escape. She might have a discussion with her doctor about a 1 week old embryo within her. To some people that’s an innocent 1 week old embryo, and if it’s “murdered” the full force of the collective should be brought down to punish the murderer. What say you?

How about education, should the collective be able to take money from an individual in order to subsidize the education of another person’s child? If you’re against collectivism, I do hope you’re arguing for the complete abolition of public education. Oh and also public fire departments, you’d have to be a collectivist to support those.. they can be a private free-market enterprise. In the great and righteous fight against collectivism, you must be calling for the abolition of public fire departments.

Oh and I do find it interesting that you’ve deemed confederate symbology racist, do you mind explaining why?

With enough prying, one can expose the inner authoritarian collectivist in most “conservatives”.

Focus like a laser.....

Either respond to the post to which you've linked......or don't link to it.

Simple?

 

[alang1216]

In 2011 target wasn’t in the picture, Walmart was. So what is the excuse for not allowing business to put people to work then, not today.

They allowed one business in but not another. Why Walmart? I don't know but it seems like it was a reaction to Walmart, not an attempt to keep out all businesses. If someone wanted to open a brothel in your neighborhood you might not want to allow them in either.

 

[jc456]

In 2011 target wasn’t in the picture, Walmart was. So what is the excuse for not allowing business to put people to work then, not today.

They allowed one business in but not another. Why Walmart? I don't know but it seems like it was a reaction to Walmart, not an attempt to keep out all businesses. If someone wanted to open a brothel in your neighborhood you might not want to allow them in either.

it was jobs for the residents. ANd that is what I said. So I'm still waiting for you to state how it doesn't support my point?