Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops

[rtwngAvngr]

What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread? Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.

Well I'm of the opinion that threads should be allowed to drift quite widely. Don't be such a "rules whore"

I was just refuting Xen's socialist insanity. Read my sig. Do you agree with this psycho?

 

[Abbey Normal]

What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread? Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.

You'll have to ask our little Socialist friend. He is the one who keeps bringing up the free-market economy and evil corporations.

 

[Annie]

What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread? Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.

And this is an example of your boring part-I noticed you totally ignored the kudos part, but then so will I.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=3&pp=15

#44.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=4&pp=15

#50.

Not too mention the number of posts where you have replied after asking a particular question:

'I'm not going to agree...' 'I'm not going to respond...' 'Don't try to discuss this anymore...' and others of that ilk. Not only lame, but it takes away from what you do successfully.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And this is an example of your boring part-I noticed you totally ignored the kudos part, but then so will I.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=3&pp=15

#44.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=4&pp=15

#50.

Not too mention the number of posts where you have replied after asking a particular question:

'I'm not going to agree...' 'I'm not going to respond...' 'Don't try to discuss this anymore...' and others of that ilk. Not only lame, but it takes away from what you do successfully.

Libs always try to just abandon the discussion when they lose. It's why they can't do talk radio. They can't argue effectifely, because their arguments have no merit.

 

[xen]

Well I'm of the opinion that threads should be allowed to drift quite widely. Don't be such a "rules whore"

I was just refuting Xen's socialist insanity. Read my sig. Do you agree with this psycho?

Here we go with the socialism again..oh brother.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures that people have the most power in this country. government IS the people.

The government is Representative of the people, hence the reason we vote for representatives rather than voting on our own laws. However power of the government over all manufacturing and elimination of the free market has already been shown to be a failure, there is no need to experiment with this. Not only that but that form of government is overbearing and takes from the individual their free rights.

BTW this type of thing is why I thought you were communist (and now believe so even more than before pssshhht, elimination of the free market system), even the Democrats are into a truncated free market with government oversight, not the elimination of capitalism but a hobbled capitalism.

 

[no1tovote4]

The freemarket is illogical and insane. You're saying WE THE PEOPLE shouldnt be allowed to regulate our own market!? :duh3:

Elimination is not the same as regulation. Once again you go overboard and seem to not even realize that different words have different meaning.

The elimination of the free market means a complete government takeover of all companies and corporations.

The regulation of a free market means that laws are placed over corporations to ensure standards and to protect the individual from a larger organization of individuals.

There is an immense difference between the two.

 

[xen]

The government is Representative of the people, hence the reason we vote for representatives rather than voting on our own laws. However power of the government over all manufacturing and elimination of the free market has already been shown to be a failure, there is no need to experiment with this. Not only that but that form of government is overbearing and takes from the individual their free rights.

BTW this type of thing is why I thought you were communist (and now believe so even more than before pssshhht, elimination of the free market system), even the Democrats are into a truncated free market with government oversight, not the elimination of capitalism but a hobbled capitalism.

I agree with everything you just said.
I believe in responsible capitalism. Where the PEOPLE decide on what a business can and cannot do. this is the only way the people can get whats in their best interest. Freemarket is totally opposite, when the private industry makes its own rules.

 

[xen]

Elimination is not the same as regulation. The elimination of the free market means a complete government takeover of all companies and corporations.

I don't believe the freemarket is regulated by the people. Freemarket is something new, nothing to do with FDR's legacy.

The regulation of a free market means that laws are placed over corporations to ensure standards and to protect the individual from a larger organization of individuals.

THe freemarket DOES NOT place standards to protect the individual, they place standards to meet the bottom line...
The Freemarket is an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Its a free-for-all.

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree with everything you just said.
I believe in responsible capitalism. Where the PEOPLE decide on what a business can and cannot do. this is the only way the people can get whats in their best interest. Freemarket is totally opposite, when the private industry makes its own rules.

Responsible capitalism incorporates the free market. The Freemarket cannot be "totally opposite" when it is involved. Regulation is different than elimination. Look them up, you will see that they are different. I have already explained but once again it appears that you cannot read English, or choose to ignore posts that show that the words you are using are making you appear a "commie", as you so love to call others.

There is no market in the world that is entirely a free market, but capitalism necessarily incorporates a free market. The more free the market the more business positive it is, the less free the more regulation. There is a balance, but elimination of the free market is impossible when working within capitalism.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't believe the freemarket is regulated by the people. Freemarket is something new, nothing to do with FDR's legacy.

*sigh*

Since you cannot get it through your thick skull that words mean things even when the things that they mean are explained to you, I will repeat it again in different words to see if some information can soak in.

Regulation on a free market sets standards on products and services and protects individuals from the larger group of individuals who own companies and incorporate. To not recognize capitalism itself as the free market is simply denial. Elimination of the free market is the total takeover of all companies and corporations by the government with no ownership by individuals and completely run by an overpowering government. This has failed in the past and will fail again.

THe freemarket DOES NOT place standards to protect the individual, they place standards to meet the bottom line...
The Freemarket is an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Its a free-for-all.

I never stated that the free market sets regulations on themselves, you cannot read or refuse to read the actual post and make assumptions that are directly opposed to what was posted without regard to the actual meaning of the words.

I cannot stress it enough, words have meaning and when body language and facial expression is non-existent, it is very important to impart what you mean by using the correct words. That you do not know the definition of regulation is clear, that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.

The government sets regulations on the free market and therefore sets standards by which they must comply in order to enter said market, that is regulation. I have never stated that I believe in self-regulation of the free market and in fact I have stated that I do believe in the continuation of the current free market with regulations in order to protect individuals from the larger groups of individuals who own corporations.

 

[xen]

You shouldn't call it the freemarket then, since that would be to the extreme.
We should have responsible capitalism. where corporations can do business with who ever they want. But we the PEOPLE can tell them NO if they are undermining democracy, in any form. They cannot be involved in OUR government at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

Definitions:

Free market:

Colloquially and loosely, a free market economy is an economy where the market is relatively free, as in an economy overseen by a government that practices a laissez-faire, rather than either a mixed or statist economic policy. Within economics the more usual term is simply "the market", or "the market mechanism", to mean the allocation of production through supply and demand.

Regulation:

A regulation (as a legal term) is a rule created by an administrative agency or body that interprets the statute(s) setting out the agency's purpose and powers, or the circumstances of applying the statute.

Therefore the regulation of a free market is from the administrative agency of the government.

 

[no1tovote4]

You shouldn't call it the freemarket then, since that would be to the extreme.
We should have responsible capitalism. where corporations can do business with who ever they want. But we the PEOPLE can tell them NO if they are undermining democracy, in any form. They cannot be involved in OUR government at all.

They cannot but it would be a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the Individual to eliminate their right to be involved because of ownership of a corporation.

As I have told you before, a corporation is not an individual and has no rights it is the owners of the corporation that have rights.

 

[xen]

To not recognize capitalism itself as the free market is simply denial. Elimination of the free market is the total takeover of all companies and corporations by the government with no ownership by individuals and completely run by an overpowering government. This has failed in the past and will fail again.

I would be glad if that type of system DID fail in this country, socialism is stupid.

I never stated that the free market sets regulations on themselves...

I know you didn't, I did, because i disagree with you. Right at this moment corporations are writing their own rules, and its pissing me off!

...that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.

Sorry!! i differ in opinion!
Their welfare is probly 5 times the amount of welfare our citizens get. They are a burdon, the last thing we need to do is deregulate them.

... I do believe in the continuation of the current free market with regulations in order to protect individuals from the larger groups of individuals who own corporations.

You should look at it from the view of labor aswell as private individuals.

 

[xen]

They cannot but it would be a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the Individual to eliminate their right to be involved because of ownership of a corporation.

As I have told you before, a corporation is not an individual and has no rights it is the owners of the corporation that have rights.

corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
Owners are not even part of this issue.

 

[no1tovote4]

I would be glad if that type of system DID fail in this country, socialism is stupid.

Why would you be glad if it failed, it would first mean that we attempted it against all logic?

I know you didn't, I did, because i disagree with you. Right at this moment corporations are writing their own rules, and its pissing me off!

Understandable, however you need to differentiate between the individuals who run a corporation who have every right to be part of a representative government and the corporation itself.

Sorry!! i differ in opinion!
Their welfare is probly 5 times the amount of welfare our citizens get. They are a burdon, the last thing we need to do is deregulate them.

Okay you take this and quote it:

...that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.

Then you give the above answer? You make no sense. Anyway you have already seen my opinion before in an Ayn Rand quote about the "help" a government should give to a corporation. Therefore an assumption that I think that corporate welfare is a joy-joy good thing is simply showing the fact that you do not actually read the opinion of those who answer you.

You should look at it from the view of labor aswell as private individuals.

When did I say that I didn't? Once again, the most important and only goal of a government should be to protect the individual's rights. You seem to ignore what I actually say and constantly assign an opinion to me without regard to what I actually state.

 

[no1tovote4]

corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
Owners are not even part of this issue.

Once again, in agreement you see argument. I have stated repeatedly a Corporation is not an individual and has no rights at all. Only the owners of the corporations, who are individuals, can have rights.

 

[xen]

Whatever man, im gettin tired. I get your points, dont get me wrong. I suppose capitalism, is a balance is between a freeforall system and an extremely regulated one. I am not an advocate of either, balance is good.
What I DONT agree with is large multi-national corporations undermining our democracy.

RIGHT NOW corporations have a bigger vote in this country than a person. this is wrong. Sure OWNERS of corporations may have a bit more influence due to their resources, but the corporation itself, is on totally different level.

 

[no1tovote4]

corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
Owners are not even part of this issue.

You misread, I quoted your statement that Corporations should have no access to the government. Then posted:

They cannot, however it would be a violation of an individual's right to deny them access simply because of ownership of a corporation.

I was speaking about the individuals that own corporations and their rights which are protected. Somehow it seemed to you that I was stating that corporations have rights, even after I have written about sixteen or more times in this thread alone that corporations cannot have rights, only the people who own them can because they are individuals.