Absolutely disgusting
-
Christian Graus wrote:
In fact, I was saying that because you've always said the same things, I knew how you would respond.
Yeah, I like to say things that are correct. It's a bad habit of mine apparently.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
*grin* I was not criticising you in this instance. I don't agree with much of what you say, but this time I was just saying that I knew you were going to say it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Oh, the end result is the government running in to clean the mess. But, Stan's idea that capitalism with no control will always be to the benefit of the workers, is just insane.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
But, Stan's idea that capitalism with no control will always be to the benefit of the workers, is just insane.
When did I ever say that? Capitalims does not even exist to benefit workers. It simply provides the conditions essential to maximize the opportunities people have to benefit themselves. It isn't perfect, it tends to have downturns, and is predictably unpredictable. But it is the only system which can provide the long term economic growth that allows for a stable middle class. It does require strongly held social institutions to avoid becoming destructive to essential human liberties, but in that it is not distinquishable from any other means of maintaining human society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Roe v Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Texas v. Johnson ...
What in that historic museum piece was violated by these cases? One would think that burning a 'flag' would be ones 1st Amendment [cough] 'right' wouldn't it?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
One would think that burning a 'flag' would be ones 1st Amendment [cough] 'right' wouldn't it?
It never was before 1989.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Bullshit, Stan. You can't provide a single example where either I or Jon have said any such thing. Your tin foil hat has slipped over both your eyes and ears.
Rob Graham wrote:
You can't provide a single example where either I or Jon have said any such thing. Your tin foil hat has slipped over both your eyes and ears.
You were doing it just yesterday(?) arguing that universal health care isn't inherently unconstitutional. Eventhough there is absolutely nothing in the constituion giving the federal state the power to do any such thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Why would a libertarian be happy with these results? Logic dictates that they would despise the government intervention and the fleecing of the bond holders. As someone who swings libertarian I am disgusted by both parties recent history of expanding the government, interfering in legal private contracts and, lack of integrity.
Libertarians support virtually every judicial rejection of constitutional principles when it serves to undermine the will of the people on social issues. Either you believe the courts can disregard the meaning inherent in the constitution or you do not. If you do, you should be happy about this. The constitution is now entirely meaningless as a means for we the people to hold our own governmetn to account either fiscally or socially. Libertarians simply cannot have it both ways.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's my opinion that boiled down to it's essence the classical libertarian philosophy is very much similar to the ideals you claim to be about. Ideally, it diverges with classical conservatism only on the shear number of laws aimed at controlling peoples private lives. I think there is room for both, and it should lead to healthy arguments rather than the passive aggressive nonsense we see every day in this country. In my opinion, as a group, our contemporary politicians have no identity other than the ones the party they claim to support and the donors that support the party want them to have. The system failed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either you believe the courts can disregard the meaning inherent in the constitution or you do not. If you do, you should be happy about this.
I wholly support the constitution. However we haven't had a president in my lifetime that does. Do you realize that since and including Regan the office of the president has issued more than 400 signing statements in vast contrast to the grand total of less than 80 prior. This is wholly co-opting the constitution by direct interference with the way laws were intended to be written in our country. The constitution has been rendered meaningless by allowing these acts of expanding executive power. So, if you want to wax about the disregard of the constitution by any group you need to look at both parties.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Libertarians simply cannot have it both ways.
But neocons and democrats can?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
What's your opinion regarding Chrysler's CEO stating that this is the only way to avoid liquidation? If its liquidated, won't those same bond holders receive less? Or will they have more due to them being secured debt holders?
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
If its liquidated, won't those same bond holders receive less?
It's my understanding that the bond holders would be first in line from the proceeds of the sale. This new arrangement I believe strips them of their contractual and legal rights.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Because you've now reached a point where everything is in the crapper, and you have no wiggle room. Which is the end result of unfettered capitalism.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Rob Graham wrote:
You can't provide a single example where either I or Jon have said any such thing. Your tin foil hat has slipped over both your eyes and ears.
You were doing it just yesterday(?) arguing that universal health care isn't inherently unconstitutional. Eventhough there is absolutely nothing in the constituion giving the federal state the power to do any such thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I pointed out that the argument could be made, based on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, as well as under the regulation of interstate commerce clauses (Medical insurance is an interstate business after all). I did not defend that positon, nor do I now, but it is an argument that you cannot dismiss. And what does that have to do with "rejecting the historic role of the courts" . Meh. I don't know why I bother to respond to you. You become more like Ilion and CSS every day. Enjoy your delusions. Enjoy your dwindling and defunct political party. your dreams of 2012 are empty, you drive off all potential allies with your paleo-republican fervor.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, Stan's idea that capitalism with no control will always be to the benefit of the workers, is just insane.
When did I ever say that? Capitalims does not even exist to benefit workers. It simply provides the conditions essential to maximize the opportunities people have to benefit themselves. It isn't perfect, it tends to have downturns, and is predictably unpredictable. But it is the only system which can provide the long term economic growth that allows for a stable middle class. It does require strongly held social institutions to avoid becoming destructive to essential human liberties, but in that it is not distinquishable from any other means of maintaining human society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It simply provides the conditions essential to maximize the opportunities people have to benefit themselves.
No, it doesn't. It maximises opportunity for those at the top of the tree. That's all. So long as the benefit of those at the top, is the same as benefit to those below, that's fine. When it's not, only those below, will suffer. I have a friend who lives in Dayton. NCR, where she works, is moving to Georgia, as a means to make some money ( Georgia is paying them to come ) and to shed workers. Who wins in that situaton ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It does require strongly held social institutions to avoid becoming destructive to essential human liberties, but in that it is not distinquishable from any other means of maintaining human society.
Do you mean a society that is tight knit to provide assistance to those who suffer under it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Christian Graus wrote:
and you have no wiggle room. Which is the end result of unfettered capitalism.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Thanks for the laugh.
I'm always there for those less fortunate than myself.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
I pointed out that the argument could be made, based on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, as well as under the regulation of interstate commerce clauses (Medical insurance is an interstate business after all). I did not defend that positon, nor do I now, but it is an argument that you cannot dismiss. And what does that have to do with "rejecting the historic role of the courts" . Meh. I don't know why I bother to respond to you. You become more like Ilion and CSS every day. Enjoy your delusions. Enjoy your dwindling and defunct political party. your dreams of 2012 are empty, you drive off all potential allies with your paleo-republican fervor.
Rob Graham wrote:
I pointed out that the argument could be made, based on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, as well as under the regulation of interstate commerce clauses (Medical insurance is an interstate business after all). I did not defend that positon, nor do I now, but it is an argument that you cannot dismiss.
Fine, how about sodomy laws? The 14th amendment has become the constitution. It is now a legal device that essentially gives the courts the carte blanch authority to turn American society into what ever they want it to be. When I hear libertarians protesting that, I might revise my opinions of them. Opps, there I go back into the sharia box again...
Rob Graham wrote:
Meh. I don't know why I bother to respond to you. You become more like Ilion and CSS every day.
Yeah, how dare we disagree with the authority of the libertarian brotherhood? If you were really paying attention you would observe that Illion, CSS and I disagree with one another as much as we do the rest of you. It is only your crowd that moves together in intellectual lock step, deciding who is and who is not worthy of your approval. Libertarianism at its most hypocritical. But then I repeat myself...
Rob Graham wrote:
you drive off all potential allies with your paleo-republican fervor.
Thats 'paleo-conservative' thank you very much...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It simply provides the conditions essential to maximize the opportunities people have to benefit themselves.
No, it doesn't. It maximises opportunity for those at the top of the tree. That's all. So long as the benefit of those at the top, is the same as benefit to those below, that's fine. When it's not, only those below, will suffer. I have a friend who lives in Dayton. NCR, where she works, is moving to Georgia, as a means to make some money ( Georgia is paying them to come ) and to shed workers. Who wins in that situaton ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It does require strongly held social institutions to avoid becoming destructive to essential human liberties, but in that it is not distinquishable from any other means of maintaining human society.
Do you mean a society that is tight knit to provide assistance to those who suffer under it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Verifiably so.
Christian Graus wrote:
When it's not, only those below, will suffer.
It is the responsibility of the individual to be self sufficient enough to be prepared for inevitable down turns. That is the price of freedom. If you want opportunity to pursue happiness, you have to accept the risks inherent in a system that most efficiently provides that opporutnity. If you want a guarenteed standard of living less than what you could have provided for yourself given opportunity, than you shouldn't live in a capitalistic society.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you mean a society that is tight knit to provide assistance to those who suffer under it ?
I mean a system like that which the US enjoyed througout most of its history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Verifiably so.
Christian Graus wrote:
When it's not, only those below, will suffer.
It is the responsibility of the individual to be self sufficient enough to be prepared for inevitable down turns. That is the price of freedom. If you want opportunity to pursue happiness, you have to accept the risks inherent in a system that most efficiently provides that opporutnity. If you want a guarenteed standard of living less than what you could have provided for yourself given opportunity, than you shouldn't live in a capitalistic society.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you mean a society that is tight knit to provide assistance to those who suffer under it ?
I mean a system like that which the US enjoyed througout most of its history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is the responsibility of the individual to be self sufficient enough to be prepared for inevitable down turns
Easy for those who don't live hand to mouth, to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Yeah, I think they are making the wrong call, but they are trying to stop short term pain to society as a whole. Pain which must come out of a system of pure capitalism.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
system of pure capitalism.
Christian, I have no idea what it would be like to live in a system of pure capitalism. But having an education that went past the 8th grade, I have no doubt that the US has not been such a society, at least since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Trust me on this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
system of pure capitalism.
Christian, I have no idea what it would be like to live in a system of pure capitalism. But having an education that went past the 8th grade, I have no doubt that the US has not been such a society, at least since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Trust me on this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I have no doubt. My point is that things are just far enough in the middle that Stan can blame the government, and he may have some point, but to suggest that a system that lets companies do what they want will benefit all, is ludicrous.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Just saw a news flash that the US Supreme Court has okayed the Chrysler deal. That is just the headline, no insight into the details but if this means that the bond holders are forced to take $ 0.29 on the dollar as proposed by the Magic Negro then the US Constituition has been shredded and the republic is dead. Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system. Barack Hussien Obama has successfully destroyed the Republic, God only knows what is next.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system.
Ok, explain this one to me - i'm not really savvy to the workings of our financial systems. Near as i can tell, Chrysler has been tossed around like a hot potato for the past few years; who was buying these bonds thinking there was no risk? And how does it happen that Obama now controls the US Supreme Court?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system.
Ok, explain this one to me - i'm not really savvy to the workings of our financial systems. Near as i can tell, Chrysler has been tossed around like a hot potato for the past few years; who was buying these bonds thinking there was no risk? And how does it happen that Obama now controls the US Supreme Court?
Shog9 wrote:
who was buying these bonds thinking there was no risk?
I am just guessing.. Really stupid people or some intelligent vultures who thought they'd make some money from a merger?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Just saw a news flash that the US Supreme Court has okayed the Chrysler deal. That is just the headline, no insight into the details but if this means that the bond holders are forced to take $ 0.29 on the dollar as proposed by the Magic Negro then the US Constituition has been shredded and the republic is dead. Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system. Barack Hussien Obama has successfully destroyed the Republic, God only knows what is next.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Also dead is our financial system
It's not quite dead, just in a vegetative state... kinda like Terri Schiavo. Think of the Chrysler deal as a feeding tube. I haven't read the details of the deal either.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Barack Hussien Obama has successfully destroyed the Republic
He's sure making some dumb decisions, in particular the ones where he's keeping George W. Bush's failed policies. The Iraq invasion was a really stupid idea, the torture policies are frightening, the bank bailouts were a bad idea too.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system.
Ok, explain this one to me - i'm not really savvy to the workings of our financial systems. Near as i can tell, Chrysler has been tossed around like a hot potato for the past few years; who was buying these bonds thinking there was no risk? And how does it happen that Obama now controls the US Supreme Court?
Shog9 wrote:
who was buying these bonds thinking there was no risk?
3 state of Indiana pension funds, ie., teachers, police and one other (don't remember the other). and if legal precedent were followed, all 200 years of it, bond holders would be first in line to recover their investment.
Shog9 wrote:
And how does it happen that Obama now controls the US Supreme Court?
beats the living fuck out of me but you might as well live in some banana republic because the law, any law, is not worth the paper it is written on.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I have no doubt. My point is that things are just far enough in the middle that Stan can blame the government, and he may have some point, but to suggest that a system that lets companies do what they want will benefit all, is ludicrous.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
to suggest that a system that lets companies do what they want will benefit all, is ludicrous.
Stan, Ilion, CSS - they all take a half-truth, twist it until its mother wouldn't recognize it in a bright light, then use the resulting logical mishmosh to 'prove' that unless their prescription if filled by the entire world within the next week, armageddon will be upon us. They are the internet equivalant of the guy with a big "repent" sign marching up and down in front of city hall and mumbling insults at passers-by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin