Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
Man, how long did it take you and your circle jerk to come up with that one?
Going into Nosense mode:
"Jeez, you shore ez funni Nosense....hur, hur, hur" ....
Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
:snort:
How about this one?? Is she a man???
You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?... he'd have no way to know.
We DON'T HAVE free markets. There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free". Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did. There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection. But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access. I don't think that can be said anymore. In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales. But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore. The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system. IOW, poor folks don't have access.
It's not "the rich" holding them down. "The rich" can't do that without the force of government. The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians. And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power. IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
We've got the Executive Branch legislating through regulatory law. We've got the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench. We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives. This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor. Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales. The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick. What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems. Punish people if they do something wrong. Don't limit their access to the market.
You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?... he'd have no way to know.
We DON'T HAVE free markets. There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free". Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did. There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection. But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access. I don't think that can be said anymore. In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales. But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore. The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system. IOW, poor folks don't have access.
It's not "the rich" holding them down. "The rich" can't do that without the force of government. The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians. And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power. IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
We've got the Executive Branch legislating through regulatory law. We've got the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench. We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives. This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor. Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales. The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick. What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems. Punish people if they do something wrong. Don't limit their access to the market.
You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?... he'd have no way to know.
We DON'T HAVE free markets. There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free". Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did. There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection. But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access. I don't think that can be said anymore. In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales. But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore. The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system. IOW, poor folks don't have access.
It's not "the rich" holding them down. "The rich" can't do that without the force of government. The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians. And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power. IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
We've got the Executive Branch legislating through regulatory law. We've got the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench. We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives. This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor. Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales. The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick. What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems. Punish people if they do something wrong. Don't limit their access to the market.
Obama likes to invent problems.
If you created the problem it's easier to act like you have the solution.
