Soup Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 http://www.npr.org/2011/12/26/144283217/with-occupy-protests-police-aimed-for-restraint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 re above: so 40% of police agencies approve use of pepper spray and 20% use of taser on passive protestors. how is that supposed to be comforting? numbers like 5% might seem okay for the pepper spray, atleast enough to make me have slight faith in their ability to mitigate (not to mention protect and serve), but what chiefs/mayors are saying its okay to tase passive protestors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20111231/NEWS01/112310303/Montana-high-court-upholds-ban-election-spending-by-corporations Montana overturning Citizen's United (on a state level) this is pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootybrown Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 can somebody ban that guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20111231/NEWS01/112310303/Montana-high-court-upholds-ban-election-spending-by-corporations Montana overturning Citizen's United (on a state level) this is pretty cool. i gotta give the left credit for finally using an honorable way to achieve their goals. however, if some 'right wing' cause used these means, they would be up in arms for infringing on the 14th amendments application of the bill of rights to the states. just like they were up in arms about 'made in montana' firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 the fact that corporate sponsorship of politicians can be deduced to something that is only the concern of the left, is upsetting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 hey man, im with you on that. i believe government should only exist to protect rights. that was the original mantra. however, the problem is that government has all this power and is even capable of handing out the favors. if you have a pot of honey, you attract bears. everyone fights over the honey. passing a law saying that a certain group cant lobby to get its part of the honey wont solve anything as they'll just get more creative. you have to get rid of the honey. in this case, a government that gives out special favors, handouts, etc. if government doesnt have the power, they cant hand it out to others. there is then nothing to lobby. problem solved. i just dont think that telling a group of people where they can put their money or in teh case of citizens united, telling a group of people that they cant make a movie about a politician, therefore infringing on a persons rights is hardly a solution to the problem. the general line of thought is: corporations control the government we need government to protect us from the corporations. yeah, that will work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The problem if you ask me is division. Left/Right White/Black/Hispanic/Asian Middle/Lower Class Christian/Jew/Muslim If the people stopped buying into the little diffrences that divide us no government, no police force, nothing could stop us. As long as we acknowledge Race,Class, Religion, Nationality, Ideology there will never be real change that all of us commonly seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 the general line of thought is: corporations control the government we need government to protect us from the corporations. yeah, that will work. as long as we're oversimplifying shit, the libertarian line of thought would be: corporations lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, destroy, etc because they must in order to succeed under the strict and unfair government controls we should eliminate those government controls and they'll start acting in everyone's collective best interest yeah, that'll work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 haha, that is plain distortion. corporations, unless acting under govt auspices cannot legally lie, cheat, steal, murder or rape. complete false line of thought on your part. but nice try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 what does legality have to do with it? you're ignoring the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 what does legality have to do with it? are you serious? mala in se law is the only just law. fine, i'll reword. corporations, unless acting under govt auspices CANNOT lie, cheat, steal, murder or rape. no one is allowed to do this. unless of course you are the government or a person or entity hired under said government 'authority' maybe im missing something, but i dont see walmart and apple computer running predator drones over top of people, bombing countries, and being given the authority to throw citizens in jail without trial forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Tse Fun Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The problem if you ask me is division. Left/Right White/Black/Hispanic/Asian Middle/Lower Class Christian/Jew/Muslim If the people stopped buying into the little diffrences that divide us no government, no police force, nothing could stop us. As long as we acknowledge Race,Class, Religion, Nationality, Ideology there will never be real change that all of us commonly seek. Steelers/Ravens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalasfock Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 what does legality have to do with it? are you serious? mala in se law is the only just law. fine, i'll reword. corporations, unless acting under govt auspices CANNOT lie, cheat, steal, murder or rape. no one is allowed to do this. unless of course you are the government or a person or entity hired under said government 'authority' maybe im missing something, but i dont see walmart and apple computer running predator drones over top of people, bombing countries, and being given the authority to throw citizens in jail without trial forever. So what your saying is they CANNOT as in like physically unable because of said laws in place??? Or they choose not to because of said laws.. Youd better say physically or else your argument holds no water whatsoever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 i think yall are grasping at straws here. if a corporation (a group of people) murders, kills, rapes or commits fraud, they are liable and accountable, just like any other person in a free society. if they do get away with 'dirty deeds' in todays age, it is because of govt privileges. if a government exists, it is supposed to protect rights. which means, if your rights are infringed upon, they are supposed to make sure the offenders are held accountable. liberals have this fantasy that the current system of corporatism in the US is a free market. logical implication of fists' original analogy was that corporations some how today are raping, murdering and stealing and that in todays society or a freer society, they are allowed to do this. that is why the analogy is wrong. if someone tries to murder or steal from me, first they have to deal with my own defenses. they that fails, they will then have to deal with the authorities that are supposed to protect my rights and prosecute such infringements. if you think because it is humanely possible that someone acting under corporate authority can murder someone, that we should abolish corporations, you must also seek to abolish every person on the earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 christ. what does legality have to do with it if the legality/illegality of something is simply ignored? in the flavor of this thread: wall street--who has spent a single day in jail or paid a fine or been penalized for the inarguable lying, cheating, and stealing that took place over the last 15-20 years on wall st that resulted in the 07 crash? why would these companies act in any different capacity with fewer/no regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 christ. what does legality have to do with it if the legality/illegality of something is simply ignored? in the flavor of this thread: wall street--who has spent a single day in jail or paid a fine or been penalized for the inarguable lying, cheating, and stealing that took place over the last 15-20 years on wall st that resulted in the 07 crash? why would these companies act in any different capacity with fewer/no regulations? what does legality have to do with someone if it is ignored? if someone steals from me, i have a right to get my stuff back. one way or the other. if someone hasnt stolen from me, i dont have a right to go after the same guy because he hasnt committed aggression against me. if you think that a law of some sort isnt effective, and that corporations are not held accountable if they murder someone, why do you think more regulations can create an economically socialist utopia? if there was indeed fraud on wall street over the past years it is because of two things. government granted this power to them. or government is impossible of preventing it and/or has chosen not to prosecute it. in fact, govt implicitly guaranteed EVERYTHING that happened on wall street. it is because of government that it could of even happened. but i'd venture out on a limb and say that most people who believe that 'wall street' 'caused' the housing crash and that government had nothing to do with it, do not understand what exactly fraud is and what it isnt. in 1950, there was DRASTICALLY fewer housing regulations. why didnt the crash happen then? why werent there no doc loans? when my great grandfather bought his land with a mortgage in the 1940, i am told the entire process was done in 1 week. including settlement. fast forward, in 1980, no one could get a loan. it took my parents 6 months to get a loan. with perfect credit. your ilk said no one could get a loan because capitalists were against the poor and wouldnt loan money. your belief set on these issues makes no logical sense. first they were to stingy, then in 2000 they are too loose. the only thing that caused the housing collapse was artificial manipulation of money and credit and the federal regulatory apparatus that created moral hazard which ultimately privatized profits and socialized risks. this is not capitalism, this is economic fascism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalasfock Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 i think yall are grasping at straws here. if a corporation (a group of people) murders, kills, rapes or commits fraud, they are liable and accountable, just like any other person in a free society. if they do get away with 'dirty deeds' in todays age, it is because of govt privileges. if a government exists, it is supposed to protect rights. which means, if your rights are infringed upon, they are supposed to make sure the offenders are held accountable. liberals have this fantasy that the current system of corporatism in the US is a free market. logical implication of fists' original analogy was that corporations some how today are raping, murdering and stealing and that in todays society or a freer society, they are allowed to do this. that is why the analogy is wrong. if someone tries to murder or steal from me, first they have to deal with my own defenses. they that fails, they will then have to deal with the authorities that are supposed to protect my rights and prosecute such infringements. if you think because it is humanely possible that someone acting under corporate authority can murder someone, that we should abolish corporations, you must also seek to abolish every person on the earth But you make it sound as if its not allowed then it must not be happening otherwise we would hear about it in the news and these corporations would be getting rolled up... This is not the case however, they buy their way out of most "legal issues" they might find themselves in.. Why would the government hold these people accountable anyways if they are funding their campaigns and such? seems to be a bit of conflict of interest and thats the root of this entire issue.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 if this stuff is going down, i'd love to see all the dead bodies, raped women and stolen loot. the root of the entire issue isnt corporations controlling government, its governments having the power in the first place to do bad things. think about it. a corporation isnt lobbying angelofdeath. why? because i have no legal power to do things im otherwise restricted in doing like the government does. they lobby the government because it grants them extra legal powers, privileges, immunities, handouts, etc. if you are serious about getting rid of a government that is accountable to special interests, you must then join me in saying that if we are to have a government, it must do one thing, protect rights. NOTHING ELSE. you must also support getting rid of the welfare queens, israeli lobby, and whatever other lobbying organizations are demanding more special favors. if you concede government has the power to grant powers to people and groups that individuals dont possess, dont get mad when a group that you dont like, uses it. thats the root of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 what about the corporations that fund money into african warzones to enable them to get access to minerals they use in high end electronics? I do understand what AOD is saying I just disagree with him (as he knows!) I dont believe the government regulation on the financial markets was strong enough. The banks are taking some of the best minds to create these complex financial mechanisms and products that no one understands (even the regulator). The government failure is they didn't understand the markets and their products, the regulation should be stronger to stop this type of business. It doesn't help that all the huge corporations have their fingers in government to manipulate it to their reequirements. The whole system needs to be changed government, regulation and the financial market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Steelers/Ravens? No this is the only divide I will except. In fact all the Steelers and the ''Steeler Nation'' should be exiled from American soil, actually the god damn Planet. Steelers fans arent people, they are robots that believe the number ''6'' is magically and makes up for any embarrasing loses that come their way. Other than that though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 what about the corporations that fund money into african warzones to enable them to get access to minerals they use in high end electronics? to me this is on the same level of discussion as 'what if we have murderers?' or 'what if some rich guy buys up all the food and starves the entire world? no system creates utopia nor is there any way possible for the worlds population to all agree on an issue or have every single person on the planet live the same way as ________ wants us to. its absolutely impossible. i dont know the specifics of this 'funneling money into african war zones to access to minerals' but on its face it seems no different than if someone pays you 1 million dollars to enter the ground under your property to get minerals. I do understand what AOD is saying I just disagree with him (as he knows!) I dont believe the government regulation on the financial markets was strong enough. The banks are taking some of the best minds to create these complex financial mechanisms and products that no one understands (even the regulator). im supposed to believe that over 100 regulatory agencies that couldnt correct market fascism are going to be able to if we just pass a few more laws? its the same mantra that has been going on for centuries. 'we need just one more law...' and hear we are centuries later with the same mantra. the reason? every law creates unintended consequences which then requires 10 more laws to fix. which then for each of those 10 laws, requires 10 more laws. its a self licking ice cream cone. the leftist argument fails. why? for this simple fact. why wasnt there a housing bubble before the 2000-2008/09 bubble? there was less regulations. why not a housing bubble in 1900 when there was hardly any financial regulations? the only theory that successfully explains this is the ATBC. nothing else explains the cluster of errors. the reason derivatives came about was because of the federal reserve credit which made money cheap and the government regulatory apparatus which implicitly if not encouraged banks to make risky loans. imagine if you had someone telling you that you could make trillions but you would have absolutely no risk at all, would you act on this? i'd venture to say most people would. without government, a derivative as we experienced in the housing boom could not exist. The government failure is they didn't understand the markets and their products, the regulation should be stronger to stop this type of business. It doesn't help that all the huge corporations have their fingers in government to manipulate it to their reequirements. government set the stage to create 'the products.' without it, they wouldnt exist. if a free market simply would result in this, i'll beat the dead horse again, why did it take the greedy capitalists this long to figure out how to create derivatives? whey didnt they do it back when they had hardly any regulations to deal with? the lefts answer is always just a 'few more sensible stronger' regulations. i say its all a self licking ice cream. market regulations are much stricter. no free market would allow banks to make such loans as they did. no free market would bail out investment banks that made bad bets. no free market would prop up failed businesses. no free market would guarantee solvency of institutions no matter how they behaved. the market would of let wall street collapse for acting in this matter. but more to the point, without the federal reserve, there would of been no cheap inflation to coercively pour the alcohol for the drinking binge. hence, without government, you had a sound free market that never could create the fed induced credit bubble. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Things will also never change because everyones too god damn stupid and cowardly. Theres too many faggot ass cops who have no life anyone and enjoy being fascist pig cocksuckers who protect whatever master it is that allows them to feel important. Money talks and everything else walks, those in charge control money that is a made up value and they soak the media with celebrities, ''royalty'' and figure heads who make you feel like a piece of shit if youre not trying to make money, I just never understood how people get so Starstruck over someone theyve never met who wouldnt give their cousin dying of cancer an autograph. Thats why all my heros were broke, did what they loved and said fuck the system. Fuck all you people who follow any of that bullshit and contribute to the real problem. Sleeping in tents will never solve anything, until people take arms or until people start educating themselves and stop relying on the government for education, news, and culture and wake the fuck up nothings ever going to change. The amount of people who defened the ''1%'' and schoffed at those actually trying to raise awareness make me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What cracks me up about libertarians is that milton friedman was a libertarian economist if ever there was one, but unlike his political counterparts he was intelligent enough to repeatedly say not to compare idealism with reality—Something Ron Paul and his followers entertainingly do all the time. On that point, so do 95% of all politicians but hey moving on. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/20/144028899/the-tuesday-podcast-jack-abramoff-on-lobbying Now AOD, you tell me: Is THAT a free market at work? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What cracks me up about libertarians is that milton friedman was a libertarian economist if ever there was one, but unlike his political counterparts he was intelligent enough to repeatedly say not to compare idealism with reality—Something Ron Paul and his followers entertainingly do all the time. On that point, so do 95% of all politicians but hey moving on. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/20/144028899/the-tuesday-podcast-jack-abramoff-on-lobbying Now AOD, you tell me: Is THAT a free market at work? your post simply displays that you lack any comprehension of what a free market is. your problem is you think the current economy in america is a free market. basically ideological leftist concludes that anything that a corporation does through government or any government power given (think extra rights) to a certain group is 'the free market.' america is not a free market. america has had mixed economy for well over a century if not longer. the current system is economic fascism with a good dose of ideological socialism thrown in to round things out. government even having the power to grant extra rights, privileges, immunities and limited liability to various groups of people (rights that they do not even possess in a free society) is all that is needed to show that the examples you tout are not examples of a free market economy. they are examples of a corporatist economy. in a free market there are no bail outs, no favorable regulation, no favors, no privileges and THERE IS NOTHING TO LOBBY. if you are really against lobbying government you should favor a free society with bare bones to no government at all. then all the problems you hate, that have been created by government do not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So what you're saying is there shouln't be lobbying.... which means you agree with fist. /endAODderailment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipod90 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Things will also never change because everyones too god damn stupid and cowardly. Theres too many faggot ass cops who have no life anyone and enjoy being fascist pig cocksuckers who protect whatever master it is that allows them to feel important. Money talks and everything else walks, those in charge control money that is a made up value and they soak the media with celebrities, ''royalty'' and figure heads who make you feel like a piece of shit if youre not trying to make money, I just never understood how people get so Starstruck over someone theyve never met who wouldnt give their cousin dying of cancer an autograph. Thats why all my heros were broke, did what they loved and said fuck the system. Fuck all you people who follow any of that bullshit and contribute to the real problem. Sleeping in tents will never solve anything, until people take arms or until people start educating themselves and stop relying on the government for education, news, and culture and wake the fuck up nothings ever going to change. The amount of people who defened the ''1%'' and schoffed at those actually trying to raise awareness make me sick. Aint that the truth. Props given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 How about providing an example of this idealism? I am certainly talking about reality when I comment on libertarianism, I would imagine most others are also. Libertarian arguments are generally centred on two major themes; justice and efficiency. Both of which are concerned with improvement of current practices rather than fantasising about a perfect world. In fact it is that libertarians tend to recognise the systemic complexity of any given political/legal system or solution that actually makes them less idealistic than their contemporaries, who tend to think they can fix the world one piece of legislation at a time. These articles support, rather than refute, a case for limiting the scope of government. You and AOD are agreeing with Fist, which leads me to believe that libertarian arguments are actually only centered on one major theme: It's all about the post count. I should probably say JOKES, because this is all srs bsns with you, but anyway. Now I like to argue on the internet more than anyone, but I like to keep it to one internet argument at a time. If everyone's in agreement that there should be no lobbying, awesome. Now what are we arguing about—If Lobbying represents the government's hand in the market, or the market's hand in the government? I dont get why anyone would care. I get why libertarians would care, because they HAVE to frame every fucking argument as pro market, anti government as if one's water and the other's oil and it's oil's fault for everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So what you're saying is there shouln't be lobbying.... which means you agree with fist. /endAODderailment in an abstract way there shouldnt be lobbying in the sense you are talking about. however my preferred method of achieving this is much different. i say the government shouldnt have the power to dole out. and you dont trample peoples rights to say....make movies about statist political candidates before an election. you guys say the government should be able to do anything it wants and its powers be unlimited, just a corporation cant lobby for it, but unions, welfare queens, and liberal groups or whatever can get their share of the pie. i say get rid of the pie. and that the regulations that, for centuries, havent effectively created your economic utopia (because of the unintended consequences and market distortions) will effectively be able to limit a corporation from lobbying government. the only way these laws can create the effects you want is if you take them to the logical conclusion and just make government own everything. lets face it, the soviets were very good on regulation, there wasnt any. they owned everything, people didnt. this is a fundamental difference in the leftist critique of lobbying and mine. lets not forget that the first amendment guarantees the right to petition ones government for a redress of grievances. in effect 'lobbying.' there is nothing wrong with telling the government (or lobbying if you will) to leave people alone. this is essentially 'constitutional.' the problem comes when you lobby government to do things it doesnt have the power constitutionally to do. despite the flawed constitution, but as it was written, it did effectively limit the lobbying power of X groups until the 20th century because it had very little favors to hand out if any. because you can flap all you want about getting some privilege from government, but if they dont have the power, they cant give it to you. although the internal improvement debates started when the ink was still wet. big government types wanted govt to pay for internal improvements. small government constitutionalists didnt. this was effectively the first acts of both corporate welfare and extra constitutional powers being used by the government. the very act of being able to speak freely and say ask your government to do something is actually the mark of a free society. the difference being in the ideal case, government doesnt have the power to dole out said favors. for instance a free society allows people to advocate for socialism and they can even set up voluntary socialist arrangements, they just cant force others into their arrangement. a socialist society doesnt allow one to advocate or engage in capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.