Human Dignity and Happiness: The Moral Argument for the Right

[kaz]

That's the kind of rhetoric that defines the left. The point was less government means less power for the mega banks. Look at Jon Corzine for example, no sweetheart deals there?


Report: Obama Crony Jon Corzine Won't Be Prosecuted For Losing Billions in Private Investments - Katie Pavlich
Corzine is also the former CEO of MF Global, a now bankrupt company under Congressional and Department of Justice investigation for losing billions in private investments. According to the New York Times, Corzine won't be prosecuted for the loss of those private funds by Holder's DOJ.

lol, you're an idiot. If less government meant less power for the banks, then the banks wouldn't be fighting for less government.

Use your head once in awhile, if there's anything usable in it.

Yes, that argument seemed rather spurious to me also. The banksters already got what they wanted, now all they have to do is hold on to it with the help of kiss ass collaborators like this one.

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

 

[occupied]

lol, you're an idiot. If less government meant less power for the banks, then the banks wouldn't be fighting for less government.

Use your head once in awhile, if there's anything usable in it.

Yes, that argument seemed rather spurious to me also. The banksters already got what they wanted, now all they have to do is hold on to it with the help of kiss ass collaborators like this one.

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe slavery was/is immoral (and on a board like this you have to include that 'if')

would you have left it to the 'market' to end it, or would you have trusted the government to take the moral action?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, that argument seemed rather spurious to me also. The banksters already got what they wanted, now all they have to do is hold on to it with the help of kiss ass collaborators like this one.

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol

 

[occupied]

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that argument seemed rather spurious to me also. The banksters already got what they wanted, now all they have to do is hold on to it with the help of kiss ass collaborators like this one.

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Right, what you are buying is that when big government fails, it just goes to show how we need more government. And when that fails, it'll show we need even more government. We'll just have to keep adding government until we get it right. Government made this mess, they will just have to clean it up for us.

Einstein, the definition of insanity is do the same thing over and expecting a different result

 

[occupied]

Seriously, you didn't get what he said? Inconceivable!

He was talking about crony capitalism. He said less government is less power for those banks. When government is helping big banks, and the do less to help the big banks, the big banks have less power. You two seriously didn't get that? Amazing.

Right now, politicians are in bed with big banks. It was the big banks that drove government to create the Fed. When airlines deregulated, what happened to the industry? It got far more competitive, prices plummeted. The legacy carriers LOST power with deregulation, they didn't gain it.

There are many, small financial services companies that would eat the current behemoth banks for lunch if they were only allowed to compete with them. That would totally lessen the power of the big banks.

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Right, what you are buying is that when big government fails, it just goes to show how we need more government. And when that fails, it'll show we need even more government. We'll just have to keep adding government until we get it right. Government made this mess, they will just have to clean it up for us.

Einstein, the definition of insanity is do the same thing over and expecting a different result

No I am suggesting an incredibly novel approach to banking regulation, don't let the bankers write them and dictate the terms under which they will be enforced or punished for grand, grand, grand theft. See Iceland.

 

[kaz]

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

 

[kaz]

You already said that but I ain't buying it. The free market true believers have been saying similar things to that for decades and far too many politicians bought it (or rather they were bought to believe it). There is another alternative to you counter intuitive scheme of fighting crime by telling the cops to go home, get some cops who are not required to be bought off before they are allowed to be confirmed.

Right, what you are buying is that when big government fails, it just goes to show how we need more government. And when that fails, it'll show we need even more government. We'll just have to keep adding government until we get it right. Government made this mess, they will just have to clean it up for us.

Einstein, the definition of insanity is do the same thing over and expecting a different result

No I am suggesting an incredibly novel approach to banking regulation, don't let the bankers write them and dictate the terms under which they will be enforced or punished for grand, grand, grand theft. See Iceland.

So riddle me this, Batman. If the bankers are writing their own regulation now (which they are), what makes you believe that when there is more regulation, the bankers won't write that too? Are there any synapses firing at all in what you call your brain?

Thank God we have lawyers, if there's one thing they know, it's finance. They told you so...

 

[occupied]

Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

So bankers are incapable of being horrible and monopolistic without the government? Are you really saying that? I thought it was just a joke on his part but it seems you think that after all.

 

[kaz]

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

So bankers are incapable of being horrible and monopolistic without the government? Are you really saying that? I thought it was just a joke on his part but it seems you think that after all.

Assuming you're an American, your knowledge of markets is truly sad. Only government can create a sustainable monopoly because only government has guns.

And BTW, you actually are referring to an an oligopoly, you don't even know what the terms you are using mean much less the implications of the discussion. You just hear government call and you bend over for them.

 

[occupied]

Right, what you are buying is that when big government fails, it just goes to show how we need more government. And when that fails, it'll show we need even more government. We'll just have to keep adding government until we get it right. Government made this mess, they will just have to clean it up for us.

Einstein, the definition of insanity is do the same thing over and expecting a different result

No I am suggesting an incredibly novel approach to banking regulation, don't let the bankers write them and dictate the terms under which they will be enforced or punished for grand, grand, grand theft. See Iceland.

So riddle me this, Batman. If the bankers are writing their own regulation now (which they are), what makes you believe that when there is more regulation, the bankers won't write that too? Are there any synapses firing at all in what you call your brain?

Thank God we have lawyers, if there's one thing they know, it's finance. They told you so...

It's what we have now that sucks, no need for new regs to be complicated, 90% of existing regs could be scraped by just taking out all the exections and trapdoors that make it worse than useless. You will not use consumer accounts to play in the stock market for the sole purpose of bank profits, period. just that one would have lessened the blow of 2008 considerably but it had to go away so that too-big-to-fail could become reality thanks to the free marketeers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

I googled it. I got this:

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or business people spills over into politics and government.

I highlighted the part that proves my point.

 

[kaz]

No I am suggesting an incredibly novel approach to banking regulation, don't let the bankers write them and dictate the terms under which they will be enforced or punished for grand, grand, grand theft. See Iceland.

So riddle me this, Batman. If the bankers are writing their own regulation now (which they are), what makes you believe that when there is more regulation, the bankers won't write that too? Are there any synapses firing at all in what you call your brain?

Thank God we have lawyers, if there's one thing they know, it's finance. They told you so...

It's what we have now that sucks, no need for new regs to be complicated, 90% of existing regs could be scraped by just taking out all the exections and trapdoors that make it worse than useless. You will not use consumer accounts to play in the stock market for the sole purpose of bank profits, period. just that one would have lessened the blow of 2008 considerably but it had to go away so that too-big-to-fail could become reality thanks to the free marketeers.

So you're going to write the regulation? I'm thinking not. I do have a question.

So riddle me this, Batman. If the bankers are writing their own regulation now (which they are), what makes you believe that when there is more regulation, the bankers won't write that too?

 

[kaz]

He's just trotting out the same old rationalizations to justify the continued connection between some bankster's heads and their necks.

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

I googled it. I got this:

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or business people spills over into politics and government.

I highlighted the part that proves my point.

What does that have to do with what you said? "Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol"

Nothing. I saw your posts obviously since occupied kept quoting you. The deal I offered you before is the same. If you commit to me you will start addressing what I said, then I will unignore you. You're obviously making no progress. It's specifically the highlighted where you put idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I said which is why you're currently the only person in every message board I post on that's on ignore. And why I explain it in my sig. You can post all the liberal crap you want and it is fine. It's your endless insistence on saying I said what I didn't say, didn't mean and is frankly bizarre that has you on ignore.

 

[Iceweasel]

What does that have to do with what you said? "Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol"

Nothing. I saw your posts obviously since occupied kept quoting you. The deal I offered you before is the same. If you commit to me you will start addressing what I said, then I will unignore you. You're obviously making no progress. It's specifically the highlighted where you put idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I said which is why you're currently the only person in every message board I post on that's on ignore. And why I explain it in my sig. You can post all the liberal crap you want and it is fine. It's your endless insistence on saying I said what I didn't say, didn't mean and is frankly bizarre that has you on ignore.

I tried responding to him but honestly didn't know what to say. It made no sense. I think he's in over his head but wants to get his insults in somehow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know the definition of crony capitalism, why don't you Google it? For gosh sakes...

I googled it. I got this:

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or business people spills over into politics and government.

I highlighted the part that proves my point.

What does that have to do with what you said? "Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol"

Nothing. I saw your posts obviously since occupied kept quoting you. The deal I offered you before is the same. If you commit to me you will start addressing what I said, then I will unignore you. You're obviously making no progress. It's specifically the highlighted where you put idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I said which is why you're currently the only person in every message board I post on that's on ignore. And why I explain it in my sig. You can post all the liberal crap you want and it is fine. It's your endless insistence on saying I said what I didn't say, didn't mean and is frankly bizarre that has you on ignore.

Are you conceding that businesses are capable of cronyism all on their own, or do you want to weasel out of that as well?

 

[kaz]

I googled it. I got this:

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or business people spills over into politics and government.

I highlighted the part that proves my point.

What does that have to do with what you said? "Businesses aren't capable of cronyism on their own, I think he's trying to say. lol"

Nothing. I saw your posts obviously since occupied kept quoting you. The deal I offered you before is the same. If you commit to me you will start addressing what I said, then I will unignore you. You're obviously making no progress. It's specifically the highlighted where you put idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I said which is why you're currently the only person in every message board I post on that's on ignore. And why I explain it in my sig. You can post all the liberal crap you want and it is fine. It's your endless insistence on saying I said what I didn't say, didn't mean and is frankly bizarre that has you on ignore.

Are you conceding that businesses are capable of cronyism all on their own, or do you want to weasel out of that as well?

Not in the same sense, no. They wouldn't have the power of guns. And I don't have to "weasel out" of something that you said, not me. Crony Capitalism is an actual term with an actual meaning. Pulling out one word and arguing that is just moronic.

Look, I gave you another chance. If you want to stop telling me I said things I didn't say, let me know. Until then, obviously nothing's changed. See you in the funny papers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[quo Crony Capitalism is an actual term with an actual meaning. .

So is 'cronyism'. I gave you a good definition of crony capitalism, i.e.,

the cronyism of BUSINESS spreading into the government.

That you are too ignorant or obstinate, or both, to accept it is your problem, not mine.

 

[bendog]

I think the problem is that the left views humans as people with material needs that need to be met(subsidized birth control, food, housing, etc.) The right believes that humans need more than that. They need a sense of purpose and empowerment, something that no government can give you. We want to create the conditions for success, so all Americans can achieve their own pursuits and desires.

So you provide for no mateial needs and say 'up by the bootstraps' and pay for your own gd education .... after having been educated by the state.