I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[kaz]

Does Walmart provide more jobs? How many jobs have been lost because of Walmart's business practices?

How many retail jobs were lost when Walmart moved in and "cratered" downtown business districts all across America?

How many manufacturing jobs were lost when Walmart pressured suppliers to move manufacturing offshore to cut costs?

How many many jobs have been lost because low wage Walmart employees can't afford to buy more than necessities because they're so poorly paid?

Furthermore, other retailers cut wages to remain competitive with Walmart driving down wages across the retail sector.

The ONLY people who truly benefitted from Walmart's domination of the market, are the Walton Family.

I hear you, Mao, the rich, the corporations, blah blah

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

 

[Marxist]

Does Walmart provide more jobs? How many jobs have been lost because of Walmart's business practices?

How many retail jobs were lost when Walmart moved in and "cratered" downtown business districts all across America?

How many manufacturing jobs were lost when Walmart pressured suppliers to move manufacturing offshore to cut costs?

How many many jobs have been lost because low wage Walmart employees can't afford to buy more than necessities because they're so poorly paid?

Furthermore, other retailers cut wages to remain competitive with Walmart driving down wages across the retail sector.

The ONLY people who truly benefitted from Walmart's domination of the market, are the Walton Family.

I hear you, Mao, the rich, the corporations, blah blah

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

 

[kaz]

Does Walmart provide more jobs? How many jobs have been lost because of Walmart's business practices?

How many retail jobs were lost when Walmart moved in and "cratered" downtown business districts all across America?

How many manufacturing jobs were lost when Walmart pressured suppliers to move manufacturing offshore to cut costs?

How many many jobs have been lost because low wage Walmart employees can't afford to buy more than necessities because they're so poorly paid?

Furthermore, other retailers cut wages to remain competitive with Walmart driving down wages across the retail sector.

The ONLY people who truly benefitted from Walmart's domination of the market, are the Walton Family.

I hear you, Mao, the rich, the corporations, blah blah

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

 

[Marxist]

Does Walmart provide more jobs? How many jobs have been lost because of Walmart's business practices?

How many retail jobs were lost when Walmart moved in and "cratered" downtown business districts all across America?

How many manufacturing jobs were lost when Walmart pressured suppliers to move manufacturing offshore to cut costs?

How many many jobs have been lost because low wage Walmart employees can't afford to buy more than necessities because they're so poorly paid?

Furthermore, other retailers cut wages to remain competitive with Walmart driving down wages across the retail sector.

The ONLY people who truly benefitted from Walmart's domination of the market, are the Walton Family.

I hear you, Mao, the rich, the corporations, blah blah

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

 

[kaz]

I hear you, Mao, the rich, the corporations, blah blah

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

 

[Marxist]

Facts are facts.

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

 

[kaz]

Yes, and Marxist dogma is bull shit, it's an excuse to enslave and steal from the people

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

 

[Marxist]

Yeah, that totally happened in free ukraine, the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia. Oh, excuse to steal? Sounds like capitalism.

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

 

[kaz]

Jumping through history a bit there, Sparky. Ukraine is trying to get out of the shackles of centuries of Russian domination. Not sure what the others have to do with the point.

Capitalism is economic freedom, it makes producers and consumers equals in a free marketplace. Hard to steal when you have to compete

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

 

[Marxist]

Do you know about the anarchists in Ukraine? They were crushed by... THE BOLSHEVIKS, and others. Read up on how it "steals" and enslaves people then in those places. Economic freedom, yes, and feudalism was seen as "freedom" when people lived under it, what's your point? LOL, the typical capitalist rhetoric of "free marketplace"

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

I'm not trying to use intelligent humor..

 

[kaz]

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

I'm not trying to use intelligent humor..

And you are succeeding

 

[Marxist]

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

I'm not trying to use intelligent humor..

And you are succeeding

Good, I wasn't trying to.

 

[Dragonlady]

A monopoly only exists because the government itself creates it. For example, USPS. The reason we have to subsidize the wages of mail service, have to fund their pensions, have to keep giving money to rich millionaires who do very little, is because the law is, no one can compete with USPS.

Equally, in the 1940s, the FCC created 48 white spaces in the radio spectrum specifically for broadcast TV. Yet how many channels did we have? Three. NBC, CBS, and ABC. Fox came later. The UPN network tried to startup in the 1940s, but the FCC shut them out of the market, protecting the tri-opoly of NBC, CBS, and ABC. It was government that created that protection of the big three.

This has been seen numerous times in US history. Another example would be the auto manufacturing sector. In the largely unregulated 1960s and prior, there were dozens of independent car companies. After the regulation of the 1970s, and 80s, by 1990, there were just three big manufactures. The rest were forced to sell off by government regulations.

In a true free-market capitalist system, anyone can engage the market and compete. A few people could start a new car company and compete with the big three. Instead, government regulations make that impossible, creating the very monopolies you claim to be against.

Your post is full of inaccurate information.

There were far more than 3 TV channels. Not networks, channels. But there were no communications satellites. Each station built a tower and their signal only reached so far. 40 spaces were needed on the spectrum were needed because each station's signal had a relatively limited range and there could be no overlapping signals.

Where we lived, we had three stations with rabbit ears but those with a rooftop antenna could get 8 or 9.

There was no prohibition against small independent stations but they didn't have the resources to produce programming. The networks were formed by radio networks who did have the money to produce shows and many of the early TV shows were radio programs, which the networks already had rights to and talent under contract, that they transferred to TV. No independent station could compete with those resources.

It wasn't the government that prevented more stations from going to air, it was the economics of the industry itself.

As for car manufacturers, there have been numerous car companies over the years and again, government had nothing to do with their success or failure. Some flourished for a time but none achieved the kind of commercial success or size needed to last beyond their founders' lifetimes.

The Tucker appears to have possibly had a chance, but the Big 3 refused at allow their dealers to sell the cars, and they actively worked to undersell and put the Tucker dealers out of business.

John Delorian talked about the near impossibility of starting a new car company. It's difficult to raise capital because the odds of success are so small. You have to get the car to market quickly, and it can't have technical issues. You only have one chance to make a good impression with the public.

Then there's the dealer network problem, advertising and promotion. Even the big car makers have problems with introducing new lines.

Tucker, Delorian, Bricklin, all tried and failed. So did many others. Not because of government regulation but because of the economics of the industry.

 

[Andylusion]

So you're subscribing to the old philosophy if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit, ay?

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

I'm not trying to use intelligent humor..

Judging based on your other posts, you are not using intelligence at all. How many times can clear cut facts be presented, and you simply choose to be ignorant?

 

[Andylusion]

A monopoly only exists because the government itself creates it. For example, USPS. The reason we have to subsidize the wages of mail service, have to fund their pensions, have to keep giving money to rich millionaires who do very little, is because the law is, no one can compete with USPS.

Equally, in the 1940s, the FCC created 48 white spaces in the radio spectrum specifically for broadcast TV. Yet how many channels did we have? Three. NBC, CBS, and ABC. Fox came later. The UPN network tried to startup in the 1940s, but the FCC shut them out of the market, protecting the tri-opoly of NBC, CBS, and ABC. It was government that created that protection of the big three.

This has been seen numerous times in US history. Another example would be the auto manufacturing sector. In the largely unregulated 1960s and prior, there were dozens of independent car companies. After the regulation of the 1970s, and 80s, by 1990, there were just three big manufactures. The rest were forced to sell off by government regulations.

In a true free-market capitalist system, anyone can engage the market and compete. A few people could start a new car company and compete with the big three. Instead, government regulations make that impossible, creating the very monopolies you claim to be against.

Your post is full of inaccurate information.

There were far more than 3 TV channels. Not networks, channels. But there were no communications satellites. Each station built a tower and their signal only reached so far. 40 spaces were needed on the spectrum were needed because each station's signal had a relatively limited range and there could be no overlapping signals.

Where we lived, we had three stations with rabbit ears but those with a rooftop antenna could get 8 or 9.

There was no prohibition against small independent stations but they didn't have the resources to produce programming. The networks were formed by radio networks who did have the money to produce shows and many of the early TV shows were radio programs, which the networks already had rights to and talent under contract, that they transferred to TV. No independent station could compete with those resources.

It wasn't the government that prevented more stations from going to air, it was the economics of the industry itself.

As for car manufacturers, there have been numerous car companies over the years and again, government had nothing to do with their success or failure. Some flourished for a time but none achieved the kind of commercial success or size needed to last beyond their founders' lifetimes.

The Tucker appears to have possibly had a chance, but the Big 3 refused at allow their dealers to sell the cars, and they actively worked to undersell and put the Tucker dealers out of business.

John Delorian talked about the near impossibility of starting a new car company. It's difficult to raise capital because the odds of success are so small. You have to get the car to market quickly, and it can't have technical issues. You only have one chance to make a good impression with the public.

Then there's the dealer network problem, advertising and promotion. Even the big car makers have problems with introducing new lines.

Tucker, Delorian, Bricklin, all tried and failed. So did many others. Not because of government regulation but because of the economics of the industry.

For some reason, when you quote, your posts don't show you've said anything.

 

[Marxist]

What philosophy is that?

Well, it goes if you can't dazzle them with your wit, then baffle them with your bullshit. You know, like arguing the Ukraine and Russia in the 1800s, France in the 1700s, Spain in the 1930s, that sort of thing as if it makes a point

They are valid examples, and it does make a point.

Yes, that you can't dazzle them with your wit

I'm not trying to use intelligent humor..

Judging based on your other posts, you are not using intelligence at all. How many times can clear cut facts be presented, and you simply choose to be ignorant?

So, now you move from the thread where you've been discredited, and come to point out something about intelligent humor? Let me ask you one question: Do you claim the average big mac price in Norway is $15? Well, you already did, and you claim the minimum wage affected the 2008 crisis... Actually respond. I even used your own article to show the big mac price, and you flat out call me ignorant. Get the fuck out of here.

 

[danielpalos]

It may just have to do with capital worth under our form of Capitalism

 

[paulitician]

Like i said, i'm sure greedy fat ass Republicans will continue laying Americans off and Outsourcing their jobs. I certainly understand that. But your apocalyptic 'Sky is Falling' scenario will not happen. Just like it didn't happen all the other times you guys said it would. Life will go on.

Again, what are you doing about it with your own money? Why are you so greedy?

Republican message to struggling American Workers in 2016: "Take the shite wages we give ya. If you don't, we'll just lay you off and Outsource your job."

Such a warm compassionate message, ay? Yeah, Democrats should win the White House again pretty easily.

So "Paulitician" doesn't know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. What a fucking simpleton you are

Ha, still living the fantasy we'll be going back to the 1800's ay? Well guess what? I respect Ron Paul and others, but we ain't going back. It just ain't gonna happen. Big Government domination is here to stay. It's time to accept that.

Now it's important to monitor and get involved with who or what will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending. That's the only real debate left.

What are you doing with your own money to implement your ideology of paying people more than they earned?

That's the big problem with greedy fat asses. Y'all have a very dim view of hard-working fellow Americans. You look down on em. You really do see the poor and struggling as unwashed untouchables. You even hate them.

But i bet you guys probably see yourselves as being good people. Well guess what? You're not. No struggling American will count on you and the Republican Party. And i can't blame em.

 

[paulitician]

Like i said, i'm sure greedy fat ass Republicans will continue laying Americans off and Outsourcing their jobs. I certainly understand that. But your apocalyptic 'Sky is Falling' scenario will not happen. Just like it didn't happen all the other times you guys said it would. Life will go on.

Again, what are you doing about it with your own money? Why are you so greedy?

Republican message to struggling American Workers in 2016: "Take the shite wages we give ya. If you don't, we'll just lay you off and Outsource your job."

Such a warm compassionate message, ay? Yeah, Democrats should win the White House again pretty easily.

So "Paulitician" doesn't know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. What a fucking simpleton you are

Ha, still living the fantasy we'll be going back to the 1800's ay? Well guess what? I respect Ron Paul and others, but we ain't going back. It just ain't gonna happen. Big Government domination is here to stay. It's time to accept that.

That's hardly a universal truth. Things change.

Now it's important to monitor and get involved with who or what will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending. That's the only real debate left.

Better to be a hammer than a nail. I hear you. But I'm too old for cynicism.

The Big Government vs. Small Government debate is dead. It's been settled. We are and always will be Big Government. We're not going back to the 1800's. Too many depend on Big Brother now. And it's not just poor people. Poor people get a bad wrap. They get blamed too often. But it's easy to pick on the weak and powerless. The reality is, most Americans rely on Big Brother. And most who call themselves 'Conservative', are actually the biggest advocates of Big Government. They love Big Brother spying on Citizens, and so on. They worship the Police State.

Big Government isn't only about Welfare spending. It's about much more than that. So, we're never going back. Big Government is here to stay. Now i'm gonna focus on monitoring who or what the beneficiaries of the massive spending will be. And as far as Minimum Wage goes, i'm ok with the struggling worker catching a break once and awhile. I consider it a just compassionate expenditure.

 

[paulitician]

Again, what are you doing about it with your own money? Why are you so greedy?

Republican message to struggling American Workers in 2016: "Take the shite wages we give ya. If you don't, we'll just lay you off and Outsource your job."

Such a warm compassionate message, ay? Yeah, Democrats should win the White House again pretty easily.

So "Paulitician" doesn't know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. What a fucking simpleton you are

Ha, still living the fantasy we'll be going back to the 1800's ay? Well guess what? I respect Ron Paul and others, but we ain't going back. It just ain't gonna happen. Big Government domination is here to stay. It's time to accept that.

That's hardly a universal truth. Things change.

Now it's important to monitor and get involved with who or what will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending. That's the only real debate left.

Better to be a hammer than a nail. I hear you. But I'm too old for cynicism.

The beneficiaries of government power are politicians and bureaucrats

You're still talkin like we'll be going back to the 1800's. But I got news for ya. It ain't gonna happen. Too many worship and depend on Big Brother now. And that's Just the way he always wanted it. So quit bangin your head against the brick wall, fantasizing about a time that will never be. Neither Party is interested in less Government and true Freedom & Liberty. That's just reality. I'm accepting that now and moving on.

So now i'll just try to help those who really need the help. I'll exist in a System that's here to stay. There's no use banging your head against that brick wall, fantasizing about a time that will never be. I'm just gonna make the best of things. It's all one can do now.