|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 9, 2015 22:00:00 GMT -5
One of the problems with Greece is that the EU, wanting to control it's 'members', set policies that nearly guaranteed what's happening, given Greece's Socialist idea of "it's someone else's job to take care of ME" We see another example here of something you don't understand very well. Greece's highly socialized economy made them vulnerable and a target. That much is their problem. But it is not the sole contributor to their woes.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2015 5:22:18 GMT -5
And he's absolved liberals from having to provide music for a Republican campaign event. I'm sure if it were the other way around, he'd be furious that a conservative rocker refused to provide music for Hillary Clinton. Because that would be SEXIST! or something. Don't speak for me. You are usually wrong. He says, without denying my assertion.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jul 10, 2015 5:50:36 GMT -5
I can well understand why you would be annoyed at the Kochs. Not sure why you can't "accept" the reality of various viewpoints all electing to influence a democratic representative government? Are all groups who seek to influence public policy egregious in your world, or just the ones you choose not to understand? I do not regard corporations as people, and would strip them of the right to speak to politicians were it my choice. I do not agree that money is the same thing as speech, and would favor a Constitutional Amendment (if that's what's required) to sharply limit the ability of people to spend on politics. I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 9:16:40 GMT -5
One of the problems with Greece is that the EU, wanting to control it's 'members', set policies that nearly guaranteed what's happening, given Greece's Socialist idea of "it's someone else's job to take care of ME" We see another example here of something you don't understand very well. Greece's highly socialized economy made them vulnerable and a target. That much is their problem. But it is not the sole contributor to their woes. I never said it's the "sole" problem. That's what "one of the problems..." means. However, socialism is the largest problem they have, since it means someone else pays for everything. One of the "national sports" in Greece is the avoidance of paying taxes. You would think, after over a hundred years, and the abject failure of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism as viable government, people would stop trying to make someone else pay for their lifestyles.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 9:20:22 GMT -5
So, do you agree that the same should apply to government? After all, we have a government with the power to reward or punish, dependent entirely on the political leanings of the "corporation". So, if that corporation can be punished as an individual, why can't it speak as one? It is made up of people. They can speak for it if they care to. The government should not allow politics to enter into any of its decision making about how to award business to corporations. That's a pipe dream, of course, both sides reward their buddies. But you don't want to bring that up, because Republicans are very good at diverting government money to their business buddies. Hell, 43's war was a lot about that (he may not have meant it to be, but he wasn't very smart and he was manipulated). No, it really wasn't. You are speaking about something you know nothing about aside from what the LR media has told you. We are in the situation we are in today because W listened to the whiners and the Marxists AFTER he went into Iraq, and didn't prosecute the war to win. That's a Democrat tactic. Drag a war out as long as possible so as many of their owners get money as possible. And the country got a return on the money that went to the defense contractors. They didn't take the money, declare bankruptcy, then disappear, like Democrat financiers do.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 9:21:23 GMT -5
So, do you agree that the same should apply to government? After all, we have a government with the power to reward or punish, dependent entirely on the political leanings of the "corporation". So, if that corporation can be punished as an individual, why can't it speak as one? It is made up of people. They can speak for it if they care to. The government should not allow politics to enter into any of its decision making about how to award business to corporations. That's a pipe dream, of course, both sides reward their buddies. But you don't want to bring that up, because Republicans are very good at diverting government money to their business buddies. Hell, 43's war was a lot about that (he may not have meant it to be, but he wasn't very smart and he was manipulated). And the parties are made up of people. They can speak for their party if they care to, the party shouldn't be able to do anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 11:11:35 GMT -5
I do not regard corporations as people, and would strip them of the right to speak to politicians were it my choice. I do not agree that money is the same thing as speech, and would favor a Constitutional Amendment (if that's what's required) to sharply limit the ability of people to spend on politics. I'm not surprised. Perhaps you'd care to explain why they should have the rights of people? I won't hold my breath; no one has succeeded in explaining it yet.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 11:12:48 GMT -5
You would think, after over a hundred years, and the abject failure of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism as viable government, people would stop trying to make someone else pay for their lifestyles. People will never stop doing that. At the risk of using what is to you probably an obscenity... evolution programmed them that way. Individuals who saved energy, all other things being equal, survived more readily than those who did not.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 11:16:47 GMT -5
Don't speak for me. You are usually wrong. He says, without denying my assertion. You would have to first understand the argument, which you do not, despite it having been explained to you at length. This is what happens when you start by opening the mailings you get to learn what the official position on an issue is, and then reasoning backwards from there. Fanatics, such as yourself, often do that. Right or left doesn't matter. You've proven you don't understand the difference between a political campaign, which is just jumped up advertising, and the essential nature of people. You're in "good" company; a lot of righties don't understand it, or they pretend not to because if they did understand it they'd have to discard their bigotry. I suspect that bigotry in various forms is an essential component of social conservatism. For the record, I do deny your assertions. In fact, you're wrong so often let's just assume I deny anything you assert unless I say otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2015 11:20:48 GMT -5
He says, without denying my assertion. You would have to first understand the argument, which you do not, despite it having been explained to you at length. This is what happens when you start by opening the mailings you get to learn what the official position on an issue is, and then reasoning backwards from there. Fanatics, such as yourself, often do that. Right or left doesn't matter. You've proven you don't understand the difference between a political campaign, which is just jumped up advertising, and the essential nature of people. You're in "good" company; a lot of righties don't understand it, or they pretend not to because if they did understand it they'd have to discard their bigotry. I suspect that bigotry in various forms is an essential component of social conservatism. For the record, I do deny your assertions. In fact, you're wrong so often let's just assume I deny anything you assert unless I say otherwise! Hillary is a member of a "protected class" (female) is she not? And therefore it would be illegal for Neil Young (and especially Ted Nugent) to refuse her under your logic. I don't understand your arguments, EY, because like all identity-politics based arguments, they are utterly incoherent and self-contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 11:43:35 GMT -5
You would think, after over a hundred years, and the abject failure of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism as viable government, people would stop trying to make someone else pay for their lifestyles. People will never stop doing that. At the risk of using what is to you probably an obscenity... evolution programmed them that way. Individuals who saved energy, all other things being equal, survived more readily than those who did not. Why would I see "evolution" as an obscenity? God made us as evolutionary creatures. Do you really think that we haven't changed since God made the first man? No, the individuals that survived were those that went out and found food, water, and shelter. It wasn't those that decided all that was "someone else's job".
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 11:46:22 GMT -5
He says, without denying my assertion. You would have to first understand the argument, which you do not, despite it having been explained to you at length. This is what happens when you start by opening the mailings you get to learn what the official position on an issue is, and then reasoning backwards from there. Fanatics, such as yourself, often do that. Right or left doesn't matter. You've proven you don't understand the difference between a political campaign, which is just jumped up advertising, and the essential nature of people. You're in "good" company; a lot of righties don't understand it, or they pretend not to because if they did understand it they'd have to discard their bigotry. I suspect that bigotry in various forms is an essential component of social conservatism. For the record, I do deny your assertions. In fact, you're wrong so often let's just assume I deny anything you assert unless I say otherwise! You are wrong on so many levels, it will take months to explain it all to you. As a quick block of instruction, it's not "the right" that supports, and demands bigotry, it's the Left. Just look at how they go after anyone that doesn't bow and scrape to their demands for legal recognition of perversion. Just look at the hysteria over the battle flag, which is the flag of the DNC. That brouhaha is just proof that, to vote Democrat, one must be a mental defective.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jul 10, 2015 11:57:35 GMT -5
You would think, after over a hundred years, and the abject failure of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism as viable government, people would stop trying to make someone else pay for their lifestyles. People will never stop doing that. At the risk of using what is to you probably an obscenity... evolution programmed them that way. Individuals who saved energy, all other things being equal, survived more readily than those who did not. And yet...... those who resist the sales pitch of consuming what others produce are branded in unflattering terms. It is certainly NOT evolution as you suggest, since the societies that peoples revere and spend energy and risk to migrate to, were mostly all created on the basis of individual freedom and property rights and the concept of capital. When a Cuban risks passage to the US it is not evolution that motivates him but intelligence and life's experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 13:39:02 GMT -5
Why would I see "evolution" as an obscenity? God made us as evolutionary creatures. Do you really think that we haven't changed since God made the first man? No, the individuals that survived were those that went out and found food, water, and shelter. It wasn't those that decided all that was "someone else's job". Wasn't sure you would, but a lot of fundamentalist religious types do. Google Young Earth Creationist sometime if you don't already know about them. Ah, but what if you could get someone else to do that work, for you? You'd get the results (food, etc.) without the effort. There are a number of ways one might accomplish this. For example, you could persuade people the world was run by a supernatural power, and YOU had an inside track to his favor.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 13:41:28 GMT -5
You are wrong on so many levels, it will take months to explain it all to you. As a quick block of instruction, it's not "the right" that supports, and demands bigotry, it's the Left. Just look at how they go after anyone that doesn't bow and scrape to their demands for legal recognition of perversion. Just look at the hysteria over the battle flag, which is the flag of the DNC. That brouhaha is just proof that, to vote Democrat, one must be a mental defective. With blithering like this you will never succeed in explaining anything, to anyone!
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 13:44:38 GMT -5
Why would I see "evolution" as an obscenity? God made us as evolutionary creatures. Do you really think that we haven't changed since God made the first man? No, the individuals that survived were those that went out and found food, water, and shelter. It wasn't those that decided all that was "someone else's job". Wasn't sure you would, but a lot of fundamentalist religious types do. Google Young Earth Creationist sometime if you don't already know about them. Ah, but what if you could get someone else to do that work, for you? You'd get the results (food, etc.) without the effort. There are a number of ways one might accomplish this. For example, you could persuade people the world was run by a supernatural power, and YOU had an inside track to his favor. I know some of them, and they are good people. I don't agree with their view, but I can see where they got it. That's the problem. There are those that do their best to 'shame' others into doing their work for them. And there are charlatans that DO use religion to sucker people. The "global warming" priests are among the top tier of those. As are the "gays are being persecuted" priests.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 13:46:11 GMT -5
You are wrong on so many levels, it will take months to explain it all to you. As a quick block of instruction, it's not "the right" that supports, and demands bigotry, it's the Left. Just look at how they go after anyone that doesn't bow and scrape to their demands for legal recognition of perversion. Just look at the hysteria over the battle flag, which is the flag of the DNC. That brouhaha is just proof that, to vote Democrat, one must be a mental defective. With blithering like this you will never succeed in explaining anything, to anyone! Ah, so it's fine for gays, and other Leftist religionists, to impose their religion on everyone, but Christians aren't to be allowed to follow their religion, even in their own business?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 13:49:38 GMT -5
Ah, so it's fine for gays, and other Leftist religionists, to impose their religion on everyone, You have an odd, strangely inclusive definition of religion. but Christians aren't to be allowed to follow their religion, even in their own business? Not when their religion commands bigotry, no. And for some, it seems to. Long ago, a consequence of slavery, we (society) decided that people operating public businesses had to serve the public. All the public. Nothing prevents Christians from observing their religion at home, at church, or, really anywhere except their business. Their business is not a place of worship. Keep working on that Constitutional Amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5
Any news on Greece... isn't that what this thread is supposed to be about?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2015 15:20:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2015 17:22:04 GMT -5
Ah, so it's fine for gays, and other Leftist religionists, to impose their religion on everyone, You have an odd, strangely inclusive definition of religion. but Christians aren't to be allowed to follow their religion, even in their own business? Not when their religion commands bigotry, no. And for some, it seems to. Long ago, a consequence of slavery, we (society) decided that people operating public businesses had to serve the public. All the public. Nothing prevents Christians from observing their religion at home, at church, or, really anywhere except their business. Their business is not a place of worship. Keep working on that Constitutional Amendment. Look, this is very simple: in days gone by, blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. The correct way to fix this problem is to forbid the bus company to force anyone to sit at the back of the bus. It doesn't help to force whites to sit at the back of the bus, or force blacks to sit at the front, or force the bus company to hire female bus drivers, or force the bus company to bake gay wedding cakes. All any of that does is replace one form of bigotry with another.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2015 17:44:19 GMT -5
Ah, so it's fine for gays, and other Leftist religionists, to impose their religion on everyone, You have an odd, strangely inclusive definition of religion. but Christians aren't to be allowed to follow their religion, even in their own business? Not when their religion commands bigotry, no. And for some, it seems to. Long ago, a consequence of slavery, we (society) decided that people operating public businesses had to serve the public. All the public. Nothing prevents Christians from observing their religion at home, at church, or, really anywhere except their business. Their business is not a place of worship. Keep working on that Constitutional Amendment. How is it not a religion? They have a "god", man, they have sacraments, gay "marriage" and abortion, they have commandments, starting with "thou shalt not think" and goes all the way to "thou shalt have no god but government", and they have their own laws, violation of any of which result in the destruction of the individual that transgressed. So, bigotry is fine, as long as it's Leftist bigotry. Again, the 1A doesn't restrict religion to churches or homes, any more than the 2A restricts firearms ownership to the home. And why should Christians have to hide their religion, while Leftists have theirs enshrined in the law? Blacks are black whether in their home or their business. Do you really think a black bakery could be sued for refusing anyone service? We already know gays can't be sued, regardless of whom they refuse service to. And have you never seen the sign "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? Why can businesses refuse service to those people, but not gays? And it was Democrats that enforced slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings. So why should any law passed by Democrats be enforced? And there already is a Constitutional Amendment. The first one. It enumerates that the government can pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion. Period. Businesses are not excluded from that.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jul 14, 2015 7:39:13 GMT -5
Is a post about Greece still relevant? www.economist.com/news/europe/21657627-agreeing-long-resisted-reforms-just-start-greece-greece-signs-painful-humiliating"As for the rest of the euro zone, there will no doubt be relief that the latest chapter of the Greek crisis has been closed, even if many more are to come. But when they emerge from their post-summit slumbers they will face two awkward questions. First, how can they expect a government whose identity was forged in opposition to austerity and foreign tutelage to implement reforms that stymied its far more pliant predecessors? And second, how can a euro zone that was created to drive integration and foster trust between its members thrive when it appears to have had precisely the opposite effect?"
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jul 14, 2015 10:33:26 GMT -5
Perhaps you'd care to explain why they should have the rights of people? I won't hold my breath; no one has succeeded in explaining it yet. Because a corporation is a group of people united in a commom interest, like a town, a union, or a race would be. If a corp cant lobby, support canidates or causes then no group should be allowed to, Good freaking luck with that idea.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jul 14, 2015 13:13:31 GMT -5
Perhaps you'd care to explain why they should have the rights of people? I won't hold my breath; no one has succeeded in explaining it yet. "Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation, as a group of people, may be recognized as having some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens."Corporations exist at the pleasure of government. It's an accommodation conceded due to the complexities required of business when operating in a mature economy. Some of it has to do with the pragmatic understanding of how commerce is conducted and how important it is for complex entities to exist past the vision and abilities of a founder. The legal aspects simply state that individuals don't check their personhood at the door when engaged in a business activity. Initially the corporation was indeed limited by the US approach. Many 19th century producers avoided incorporation since it was so cumbersome and limited to state by state permission to conduct business. (Rockefeller and Carnegie ) The great pompous populist Teddy Roosevelt inadvertently attacked the Trusts and in the process reformed the corporate charters and enabled major producers to engage in meaningful national and international commerce. One little known basis for corporations can be attributed to Karl Marx! He was impressed by the capitalist notion. He seemed to support the concept since it was the only State sponsored means of organizing production that endorsed his primary concern that labor (everyone) should be able to own the means of production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
|
|