Time for a dose of truth for once around here
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
Let me break this down a bit. "A governmental system led by a dictator..." Definitions: Congress - democracy President - dictator Supreme Court - aristocracy Yes, we are "led" by a dictator. How often are we told to look up to our leaders? Even though we are supposed to be the ones in charge, if this were a true republic? "having complete power..." I can understand your skepticism here, but logically think this one out. Congress no longer declares war, it lets the executive decide. People believe that the President is supposed to execute citizens without trial. People are lied to by the media through the government, which is the fault of the President (he executes the "law"). He can now decide whether or not to faithfully execute the law about the border (if it's a law, do it. If not, don't. But he decides that for himeself). etc. "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism..." Arresting media. Arresting people with pocket constitutions. Shooting people over the mexico border. CIA. NSA. Patriot Act. Need I go on? "regimenting all industry, commerce, etc..." Auto industry. Amtrak. Oil industry. Federal Reserve (but that's untouchable). Banks in general. Financial Industry. Agriculture. etc. "and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." We all know about how Democrats AND Republicans continue with racism. As to "aggressive nationalism"... are we not all about "the great united states?" Greatest country in the world my ass. For the past 100 years we have been CONSTANTLY at war, nevermind the fact that we now have the Afghanistan war to be the longest war in the history of the united states as of this week. Can I stop now? We have fascism. A form of totalitarianism. But everyone's asleep with their happy television sets watching American Idol and Real World. I don't watch TV for a reason... but I do a TV show for a reason as well.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some firms were too interconnected to be allowed to fail. Some weren't. Their judgement might not have been perfect (No system is perfect), but the idea was to save the ones that HAD to be saved (In order to prevent the collapse I described), and let the other
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, we are "led" by a dictator. How often are we told to look up to our leaders? Even though we are supposed to be the ones in charge, if this were a true republic?
A dictator has absolute power. Obama does not. He can't make laws (Though he can decide how to enforce them). There are restrictions on his power, and he can be removed by Congress. Hence, he's not a dictator.
josda1000 wrote:
Arresting media. Arresting people with pocket constitutions. Shooting people over the mexico border. CIA. NSA. Patriot Act. Need I go on?
This does exist to some degree. I'll give you that much, but I hope you don't compare our situation to, say, North Korea, where if you speak out against Kim Jong Il, you're a dead man.
josda1000 wrote:
Auto industry. Amtrak. Oil industry. Federal Reserve (but that's untouchable). Banks in general. Financial Industry. Agriculture. etc.
Applying SOME regulation is not the same as "regimenting all industry." We still have, for the most part, a free market. You don't have to ask the government for permission to start a business (Though you do have to let them know about it, for tax purposes - Not the same thing).
josda1000 wrote:
We all know about how Democrats AND Republicans continue with racism. As to "aggressive nationalism"... are we not all about "the great united states?" Greatest country in the world my ass. For the past 100 years we have been CONSTANTLY at war, nevermind the fact that we now have the Afghanistan war to be the longest war in the history of the united states as of this week.
Agreed on this part (Not looking up the war details, but I'll take your word for it). Again, though, the government doesn't REQUIRE nationalism and racism to the same degree as the DPRK or similar. We fit this part of the definition, but to a lesser degree. Of course, that's all irrelevant, because without a dictator, you don't have a fascist state.
josda1000 wrote:
I won't argue on this any longer, it's old. The thing is, the economy would have been drastically hurt, I agree, and for some time. But I know, and you should inherently know as well, that because those same banks are allowed to stay afloat, it will happen again. And it will hurt even more the second time around.
-
Yes, strong leadership. Everyone wants our president to be strong, more hard on terrorists, harder on the drug war, harder on the borders... blah blah.
Christian Graus wrote:
My grandmother did. She actually talks about it like it was a golden age. 'Oh, Hitler was not nice to the Jews, but he built nice roads'. I kid you not.
Precisely. Either they were enchanted by it (because they were happy to get out of the german mark that was HYPERINFLATED) or they hated it (for obvious reasons).
Christian Graus wrote:
But, when you and your competitors are neck and neck, and you're winning, why would they not cut wages to stay afloat. And when they do, will you do the same, or go under ?
If you and your competitors were to go neck and neck, you have no reason to cut wages. you're doing fine. What you want to do is keep your talent and not let them go sour, through cutting wages. It's just absolutely dumb to do. I have never seen this situation happen unless they were going under in the first place. If they're neck and neck, they're doing something right. Example: Burger King, Wendy's, McDonalds. I'd say that McDonalds is winning, but even if they're not, none of them have really cut wages. They may be hiring and firing constantly, but there's no reason to disenchant any current employees.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a magical world where there are no monopolies, and the 'other team' will always have more work than there are workers, and perhaps even will decide it makes them more competitive to pay me more.
I think you really have absolutely everything backwards. Our company is doing so well. We're thriving. And you know what? We have more work than we have employees. That's because we are in demand. Our stocks are up because we are worth a lot, even with the "too much to do". But that's a good problem. The problem would be if we didn't have ENOUGH demand. Please rethink all of your logic, it's definitely backwards. Capitalism is the only way to freedom. I am free to work where I please, because my talent is in demand. My company recognizes that, and pays me to work for them, and will not cut my wage because we have "too much to do".
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Yes, strong leadership. Everyone wants our president to be strong, more hard on terrorists, harder on the drug war, harder on the borders... blah blah.
But it's clear you're hardly living in a dictatorship, not now, and not the clown before.
josda1000 wrote:
If you and your competitors were to go neck and neck, you have no reason to cut wages. you're doing fine. What you want to do is keep your talent and not let them go sour, through cutting wages. It's just absolutely dumb to do.
Thus circling to my point. Laborers are hardly 'talent'. The guy stacking the shelves is not 'talent'. He's in a dead end job.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd say that McDonalds is winning, but even if they're not, none of them have really cut wages. They may be hiring and firing constantly, but there's no reason to disenchant any current employees.
Do they really pay more than the legal minimum ?
josda1000 wrote:
Our company is doing so well. We're thriving. And you know what? We have more work than we have employees. That's because we are in demand. Our stocks are up because we are worth a lot, even with the "too much to do". But that's a good problem. The problem would be if we didn't have ENOUGH demand.
My point from the start has never been that I fear for my job or my wage. It's that the people with more dead end jobs are not in the same situation, and nothing you say applies to them.
josda1000 wrote:
Capitalism is the only way to freedom. I am free to work where I please, because my talent is in demand. My company recognizes that, and pays me to work for them, and will not cut my wage because we have "too much to do".
Once again, that's great for people whose 'talent is in demand'. I never doubted that was true. I just care what happens to other people who are not so lucky.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.