Capitalism worked

[Andy]

Do you believe in global warming yet Andy? The AC360 hit on that as the last issue. If China and India go to dirty coal then in about 10 years (I think they said 2020 or something like that) they will put 5 times more carbon into the atmosphere than Kyoto was originally meant to eliminate. The only way to prevent that would be for the US to aid them two in bringing on clean coal technology. The remark: Can anyone imagine US workers being asked to contribute more in taxes to do that? No-brainer. But if you don't believ in global warming and carbon as greenhouse gas then you won't even identify with that one. If you do, try not to think about it too much.

Sure, there has been global warming since the ice age. If you believe in the ice age, do you believe the Earths temperature changes naturally regardless of humans?

Carbon is not a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is. CO2 is also a naturally emitted gas from animal life. Perhaps we should start a mass slaughter of animals since they generate more CO2 than the yearly output of human activity? A world wide socialist 'one-child' policy like China may reduce CO2 emissions as well, don't you think? In fact a little nuclear war would clean out a lot of the CO2 emitting humans.

Since since CO2 is a mere fraction of the total 'green house' effect, and since human contributions are a mere fraction of the total CO2 created... No, I don't think about it too much. Science doesn't support the idea that man made CO2 is changing the temperature of the earth. More likely, the cycles that the sun goes through has a larger effect.

 

[Libsmasher]

The US was founded in capitalistic ideals when the country had faith and morality.

However, capitalism in the absence of morality becomes ruthless monopolies.

I've heard dozens of leftists repeat this stupid statist myth - once again, monopolies have always been set up in collaborations between commercial entities and the government, or by the government alone. Reread this eight times einstein.

 

[Andy]

However, capitalism in the absence of morality becomes ruthless monopolies; and from there, still in the absence of morality and empathy, capitalism eventually sinks into downright fascism.

I would say that Capitalism in the absence of morality, becomes socialism. It is immoral people that demand government tax others, take their money, and hand it out to those who haven't earned it. It's immoral people that require government take care of them with socialist policies, from cradle to grave. It's immoral people who cause the government to become "big brother", and watch their every move to catch their evil deeds. It's immoral people that believe that everyone who is successful and makes an honest living must be crooks and liars and thieves... why? Because they themselves are liars and crooks and thieves, therefore the CEO and their boss must be also.

Once Capitalism becomes socialism, then automatically it becomes fascism. What is fascism but a faith in your government. And government, being the cure all for immoral people, is where you put your trust and hope. It was birth of modern socialism under Stalin that coined the phrase "Mother Russia".

That's where BigOil is today, murdering people in the Middle East to preserve its monopoly....sans morality...in pure and true fascist form.

Yeah, very logical. BigOil is murdering people in the Middle East in order to have the opportunity to buy oil from there at market price, just like they did prior to the war. Brilliant.

Did your father write a paper in the 70s about how BigOil would get sick of buying oil from the middle east at market prices, so they forced Saddam to kick out the UN to force the US to invade, to force the new government of Iraq to rebuild the oil fields, so that BigOil could once again buy oil from the middle east at market price?

 

[UShadItComing]

Sure, there has been global warming since the ice age. If you believe in the ice age, do you believe the Earths temperature changes naturally regardless of humans?

Carbon is not a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is. CO2 is also a naturally emitted gas from animal life. Perhaps we should start a mass slaughter of animals since they generate more CO2 than the yearly output of human activity? A world wide socialist 'one-child' policy like China may reduce CO2 emissions as well, don't you think? In fact a little nuclear war would clean out a lot of the CO2 emitting humans.

Since since CO2 is a mere fraction of the total 'green house' effect, and since human contributions are a mere fraction of the total CO2 created... No, I don't think about it too much.

So you could have just said it in a few words Andy. You don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's o.k., I suspected that you didn't anyway.

Science doesn't support the idea that man made CO2 is changing the temperature of the earth. More likely, the cycles that the sun goes through has a larger effect.

Wrong Andy! I'll entertain your ideas that science could be wrong but I won't entertain that one.

 

[UShadItComing]

I would say that Capitalism in the absence of morality, becomes socialism. It is immoral people that demand government tax others, take their money, and hand it out to those who haven't earned it. It's immoral people that require government take care of them with socialist policies, from cradle to grave. It's immoral people who cause the government to become "big brother", and watch their every move to catch their evil deeds. It's immoral people that believe that everyone who is successful and makes an honest living must be crooks and liars and thieves... why? Because they themselves are liars and crooks and thieves, therefore the CEO and their boss must be also.

Once Capitalism becomes socialism, then automatically it becomes fascism. What is fascism but a faith in your government. And government, being the cure all for immoral people, is where you put your trust and hope. It was birth of modern socialism under Stalin that coined the phrase "Mother Russia".



Yeah, very logical. BigOil is murdering people in the Middle East in order to have the opportunity to buy oil from there at market price, just like they did prior to the war. Brilliant.

Did your father write a paper in the 70s about how BigOil would get sick of buying oil from the middle east at market prices, so they forced Saddam to kick out the UN to force the US to invade, to force the new government of Iraq to rebuild the oil fields, so that BigOil could once again buy oil from the middle east at market price?

And now I know for sure you don't get it. But is there any point in trying to reprogram you?

No, it's hopeless. And anyway, why should we care? Good that you said that though because GraceAustin is going to be able to figure out how dumbed down you are right from the start and not have to waste the time I have on you.

 

[Andy]

Perhaps it's a human frailty that money & the power it brings changes some people. I honestly believe that the 'super powerful' actually think they're right in the choices they make, & that they actually view themselves to be superior. FDR recognized this frailty, and took the steps to assure dynasties would not be built. Of course a conservative movement has sought to dismantle that, to our detriment. Unfortunately, the sophistication of this movement taps into the psychological immaturity of many conservative constituents, & all they focus on is making liberals their enemy while they ignore what's right in front of them. And while they do nothing more than attack liberals, & liberals attack back, the dynasties get bigger and more powerful. In the end, we all lose. So now the question is, how do we change that?

This is the subtle shift that makes the difference between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, it's 'money & the power it brings'. For conservatives, it's power and the money it brings.

I know of many people of have lots of money, but very little real power. I know of millionaires who have no real power to speak of.

But power almost always brings money. How many of the people in government today are life long politicians who have never worked for an honest days wage in their life? Yet they are all rich, not by working until they had to money to gain power, but rather, they gained power and were given money for it.

Also, this worry over dynasties. Conservatives are worried about dynasties, just not the ones liberals worry about.

Liberals tend to worry over some dynasty 'out there' somewhere. The evil corporation. This is illogical. I have never had my money stolen by a corporation. If I start a business, what can a corporation do? Nothing. If I start building custom street rods in my garage, what can GM do? Nothing. If I start making any product, what can any CEO anywhere do about it? If I don't want to have GM in my life, I just don't buy their cars anymore, and that ends that. That dynasty has zero effect on me.

What Conservatives worry about is the dynasty of government. I have had thousands stolen from me in government taxes. If I start a business, the government can shut it down in an instant. If the government so desires, it can confiscate my property and home on a whim of eminent domain. If it wants to, it can force me to use their products, like B.C. Canada forces it's populous to use the governments Auto insurance (ICBC).

It's not BigOil forcing me buy expensive, tax subsidized, Ethanol boondoggle, so Ted Turner can get tax payer hand outs. It's Government.

Remember the Tucker automobile? It wasn't 'the big three' that ended the Tucker. It was government which confiscated the plant where the Tucker was being built, and turned it into a homeless shelter.

You are right about one thing, Liberals are the enemy. And they do attack back, and viciously so because ending the tyranny of government, means ending their reign, their power, their control. It means ending career politicians. There is nothing more scary to a liberal who has never done a day work in his life, than to force him out of office into the real world.

 

[Andy]

Wrong Andy! I'll entertain your ideas that science could be wrong but I won't entertain that one.

Wrong. I do not suggest that science is wrong. I suggest science based on observable, empirical and measurable data, says that anthropogenic global warming is wrong.

If you refused to accept scientific data based on the fact it violates your presupposition, this in itself is evidence of a closed mind. This doesn't surprise me.

I often find those that accuse others of being closed minded, as you have done to me, normally are in fact the ones closed to alternative thought to what they have already determined to be the truth.

 

[Andy]

And now I know for sure you don't get it. But is there any point in trying to reprogram you?

No, it's hopeless. And anyway, why should we care? Good that you said that though because GraceAustin is going to be able to figure out how dumbed down you are right from the start and not have to waste the time I have on you.

I am now totally locked into the grip of your reasoning. Indeed you completely responded to every point I made. The masterful use of logic, the incredible persuasive arguments. I don't know how I didn't see it before...

Perhaps next time your massive intellect will even be used on the topic at hand...

 

[GraceAustin]

GraceAustin- Is it the fault of the media. Look at how they have forced the politicians to play to the masses. How can any politician put forward a progressive agenda when he/she is prevented from telling the real story about what needs to be done? For example: Say something I like and I'll lick your boots right into the voting booth. Never mind what's good for the country.

It happens in all countries but maybe the US has progressed faster down that road. And now what chance is there of ever seeing non-partisan politics again for the good of everyone? Some Americans on this forum freely admit they don't even want to consider the possibility.

>>>>

I can't disagree with the media's complicity in this mess. They jump on words, take them out of context, & beat them to death until the audience has lost all perspective. Putting time limits on answers to complex questions is ridiculous as well, as is dissecting politicians stands to the tune of the talking head's own biases. Which is why I don't watch the MSM.

 

[GraceAustin]

This is the subtle shift that makes the difference between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, it's 'money & the power it brings'. For conservatives, it's power and the money it brings.>>>

I'll have to disagree, having watched from both sides in my life. There is no power without money, not in the sense I speak of.

I<< know of many people of have lots of money, but very little real power. I know of millionaires who have no real power to speak of.>>>

A millionaire is a small fish in the pond of power. Perhaps on a local level they can find satisfaction, but hardly on a national or international level. Unless of course you speak of 'multi' millionaires.

<<But power almost always brings money. How many of the people in government today are life long politicians who have never worked for an honest days wage in their life? Yet they are all rich, not by working until they had to money to gain power, but rather, they gained power and were given money for it.>>>

I would have to challenge you to show me a politician who didn't begin with money in the first place.

Also, this worry over dynasties. Conservatives are worried about dynasties, just not the ones liberals worry about.>>>>

Is that a riddle? I don't do riddles. Feel free to speak right up and say what you mean.

Liberals tend to worry over some dynasty 'out there' somewhere. The evil corporation. This is illogical. I have never had my money stolen by a corporation. If I start a business, what can a corporation do?>>>

well now, there's a question I have a first hand answer for. I was a partner in a business that brought a better product to the marketplace, @ a competetive price. When we began to cut into the market share of two 'big boys', they merely bought our shelf space in stores such as Target, and we were out. Being a small business, we hadn't yet accumulated the capital to out bid them. Money=power.

<<What Conservatives worry about is the dynasty of government.>>>

This may have been true in the past, but I'm afraid the days of old conservatism are gone. At least in the minds of those who control that party. I expect their constituents will catch up, once the result affects them personally. (As it already is).

<<You are right about one thing, Liberals are the enemy.>>>

Actually, I think you're your own worst enemy in thinking so. You have fallen for the game of concentrating on urban legends about liberals, and diverting your attention from what your chosen 'party' is doing.

 

[UShadItComing]

>>>>

I can't disagree with the media's complicity in this mess. They jump on words, take them out of context, & beat them to death until the audience has lost all perspective. Putting time limits on answers to complex questions is ridiculous as well, as is dissecting politicians stands to the tune of the talking head's own biases. Which is why I don't watch the MSM.

For instance, and only one instance out of many. The other night Fox news took Obama's suggestion that everyone should inflate their tires and made a big joke out of it. Hannity and Gingrich went on and on laughing their heads off about the idea.

I watch Hannity and Colmes because I learn from it and I think I'm intelligent enough to see through all the nonsense but I fear that most of those who watch it just absorb the nonsense. Here was an idea which alone would probably save as much immediately on gas as drilling off the coast will save American drivers starting 5 years from now, but they laughed it down like a couple of buffoons.

Take that example of media manipulation and multiple it many fold on both sides of the argument and the people have become dumbed down from looking at the real issues. This is why the AC360 on 'Extreme Challenges for the next 4 Years was so important in my opinion. They actually left the bias out of it and looked at the real issues which need to be faced and how it's going to need to be done in a non-partisan way.

A failing of capitalism and a failing of democracy but I don't know how one could go about fixing it. And then doesn't it become clear that some otherwise rather intelligent people on this forum have no interest in fixing it!

 

[Andy]

I'll have to disagree, having watched from both sides in my life. There is no power without money, not in the sense I speak of.

Bill Clinton. He had little money, and ascended all the way to president. Now... he's wealthy. Jeffrey Skilling, Enron CEO, tons of money. How much power did he have since he's now serving 24 years? Clinton committed felonies, and complete skirted justice.

To me, it's clear. Power yields money. Money does not always yield power.

A millionaire is a small fish in the pond of power. Perhaps on a local level they can find satisfaction, but hardly on a national or international level. Unless of course you speak of 'multi' millionaires.

Dave Thomas was filthy rich, yet had no real power.

I would have to challenge you to show me a politician who didn't begin with money in the first place.

Sure, if Bill Clinton isn't enough, how about Ralph Nader? Before entering into politics, he never worked a full time job, and his poor parents only owned a small grocery store. Now he's a multi-millionaire. If you need more examples, just ask. There are tons of them throughout our government.

well now, there's a question I have a first hand answer for. I was a partner in a business that brought a better product to the marketplace, @ a competetive price. When we began to cut into the market share of two 'big boys', they merely bought our shelf space in stores such as Target, and we were out. Being a small business, we hadn't yet accumulated the capital to out bid them. Money=power.

So 'power' in your view is buying shelf space at Target? Ok, if that's how you define it, then you are absolutely correct.

This may have been true in the past, but I'm afraid the days of old conservatism are gone. At least in the minds of those who control that party. I expect their constituents will catch up, once the result affects them personally. (As it already is).

This is true, assuming you mean the Repug party. They have indeed lost conservatism. Nevertheless, if I have to choose between the party of Socialists, and the party that at least claims to be conservative, I'll go with the one that claims to be.

Actually, I think you're your own worst enemy in thinking so. You have fallen for the game of concentrating on urban legends about liberals, and diverting your attention from what your chosen 'party' is doing.

I don't have a chosen 'party'. I'm a constitutionalist. I don't like the repugs, or the democraps. Both are pathetic excuses for a 'choice'.

That said, Liberal is the enemy. Liberals can be in either party, and they are. Just like McCain is a liberal. If I had any other better option, I'd take it. But given it's either McCain or surrender in Iraq, socialize the nation, church of Hate America, Obama, then I'm going for McCain.

I don't know of any Urban legends, I just read and hear what Liberals say. That's enough to know they are anti-American socialists.

 

[UShadItComing]

Andy seems to have a perception that if it's not manual labour then it's not work. I'm wondering if this goes as far as saying that if a person made his fortune by flipping houses or trading stocks then he hasn't worked a day in his life, as Andy puts it.

 

[Andy]

For instance, and only one instance out of many. The other night Fox news took Obama's suggestion that everyone should inflate their tires and made a big joke out of it. Hannity and Gingrich went on and on laughing their heads off about the idea.

So you believe the solution to high gas prices is to inflate tires?

Here was an idea which alone would probably save as much immediately on gas as drilling off the coast will save American drivers starting 5 years from now, but they laughed it down like a couple of buffoons.

Mathematically, if everyone reduced their gasoline usage by 10%, it would be less than 1% of the worlds oil consumption. Do you think inflating tires will increase your gas milage by 10% or more?

On the other hand, off shore drilling could possibly produce enough oil to cut our imported oil in half. Plus oil production in ANWR, could produce a million barrels a day. Do you think this huge increase in supply might reduce the cost of oil?

...but I don't know how one could go about fixing it. And then doesn't it become clear that some otherwise rather intelligent people on this forum have no interest in fixing it!

Indeed.

 

[UShadItComing]

So you believe the solution to high gas prices is to inflate tires?

It's part of the solution and a significant part of the issue which is being addressed. That was, the cost of gasoline to Americans and not the cost of a barrel of oil. It's disingenuous to put it down and I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you. I need to reorganize my time and it makes sense to me to just ignore stupidity based on partisan politics.

Mathematically, if everyone reduced their gasoline usage by 10%, it would be less than 1% of the worlds oil consumption. Do you think inflating tires will increase your gas milage by 10% or more?

No, not 10% but do you even care how much.

On the other hand, off shore drilling could possibly produce enough oil to cut our imported oil in half. Plus oil production in ANWR, could produce a million barrels a day. Do you think this huge increase in supply might reduce the cost of oil?

It has been predicted that India and China alone could be demanding somewhere around 120 million barrels a day in the next 30 years. The world currently produces about 85 or 86 million barrels a day and the US uses 20mm/day. And you think that an additional million barrels a day is significant if it comes online in 3 to 5 years time? I'm not saying that it wouldn't but you need to weigh the costs of offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR with the benefits. We could talk about that.



Indeed.[/QUOTE]