Stockholm Syndrome

[Onyx]

Could someone explain why we need to live under a group of abusive thugs in order to avoid being controlled by a group of greater and more abusive thugs?

 

[Indeependent]

Stock Holders Syndrome?

 

[Onyx]

Stock Holders Syndrome?

Stockholm syndrome: When an abused victim grows to become reliant on their aggressor.

It usually happens with kidnapping and rape victims, but is also a universal symptom among all statists.

 

[Andylusion]

Could someone explain why we need to live under a group of abusive thugs in order to avoid being controlled by a group of greater and more abusive thugs?

Well it's really simply. Vote for people who don't promise to give you things. If Government doesn't have to give you a pension, health, food, housing and so on.... then they also don't have to take your money.

Here's the difference between your meme, and reality.

The reality here is.... we are the slave masters. We are enslaving ourselves. We demand that government take everything we give, in order to give us everything we want. Free phones. Free energy. Free blaw blaw blaw blaw.

The slave master is in your mirror.

By the way, this true in our personal lives as well.

We demand a car we can't afford. So we take out a loan. Then we enslave ourselves to the car payment. And credit cards. And Cable TV, and the list goes on and on and on.

 

[waltky]

Patty Hearst was an example...

... the SLA had her convinced...

... they could get to her again.

Also, children who grow up in a violent alcoholic home...

... suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[JBond]

Could someone explain why we need to live under a group of abusive thugs in order to avoid being controlled by a group of greater and more abusive thugs?

Thug or thugs equals one or more black men from the inner city. The libs are the ones that created that definition. Will they stand by it?

 

[Onyx]

Thug or thugs equals one or more black men from the inner city. The libs are the ones that created that definition. Will they stand by it?

I am talking about the thugs that hide behind this banner

And this piece of paper

 

[Onyx]

The reality here is.... we are the slave masters. We are enslaving ourselves.

I agree that you are supporting your own enslavement.

I disagree that you have any control over the state. Thinking that you do is ignorant naivety.

The state is what enslaves you, and believing that the system was ever representative of your interests is stupid as hell.

We demand that government take everything we give, in order to give us everything we want. Free phones. Free energy. Free blaw blaw blaw blaw.

Believing that the state should exist to protect is just as outrageous as believing the state should exist to give.

You got half of it figured out, but you are still clinging to the illusion that you are helpless without the state. Maybe you are.

 

[Andylusion]

The reality here is.... we are the slave masters. We are enslaving ourselves.

I agree that you are supporting your own enslavement.

I disagree that you have any control over the state. Thinking that you do is ignorant naivety.

The state is what enslaves you, and believing that the system was ever representative of your interests is stupid as hell.

We demand that government take everything we give, in order to give us everything we want. Free phones. Free energy. Free blaw blaw blaw blaw.

Believing that the state should exist to protect is just as outrageous as believing the state should exist to give.

You got half of it figured out, but you are still clinging to the illusion that you are helpless without the state. Maybe you are.

When you claim I do not, all I have to do is look at the recent major policy chances, and it looks pretty much exactly like what the public demanded.

They wanted more medicare and medicaid. Now they have it. Of course it's going to cost them, but they got what they wanted.

No government anywhere represents an individuals interests. But as a voting group, sure.

Now that's the key. Only about half the public votes, and only half win the election. So Democracy is inherently about 1/4th of the public interest.

This is why no form of government anywhere, of any type, of any age, represents the public. It always, by definition, represents a small segment of society.

This is also why I am generally against reforms.... but by definition, no reform has the ability to fix this problem. It is simply an impossibility to have a reform that will somehow create a government responsive to all voters. Can't happen.

However, I would deny that it doesn't represent or stand for the interest of the small group that support it. They most certainly do. Most of the most recent policy chances have all been for the interest of the voters. Again, not all voters, just the voters that won.

 

[Onyx]

When you claim I do not, all I have to do is look at the recent major policy chances, and it looks pretty much exactly like what the public demanded.

Everything the public wants is the opposite of what the public gets.

The policies they do get, they were told to want by their political masters.

They wanted more medicare and medicaid. Now they have it.

After being completely brainwashed on those social programs

No government anywhere represents an individuals interests. But as a voting group, sure.

Naive as hell.

The general public is unaware of 95% of what goes through congress.

This is why no form of government anywhere, of any type, of any age, represents the public. It always, by definition, represents a small segment of society.

Government represents the interests of those in office and the corporations that lobby those in office.

Money and media win elections. If money and media fail to win elections, then the ruling class is going to rig the system.

In the words of Emma Goldman, "If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal."

 

[Andylusion]

When you claim I do not, all I have to do is look at the recent major policy chances, and it looks pretty much exactly like what the public demanded.

Everything the public wants is the opposite of what the public gets.

The policies they do get, they were told to want by their political masters.

They wanted more medicare and medicaid. Now they have it.

After being completely brainwashed on those social programs

No government anywhere represents an individuals interests. But as a voting group, sure.

Naive as hell.

The general public is unaware of 95% of what goes through congress.

This is why no form of government anywhere, of any type, of any age, represents the public. It always, by definition, represents a small segment of society.

Government represents the interests of those in office and the corporations that lobby those in office.

Money and media win elections. If money and media fail to win elections, then the ruling class is going to rig the system.

In the words of Emma Goldman, "If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal."

Well, if that was true, then why didn't government bail out Enron? Enron spent hundreds of millions on lobbying government. Why didn't government blow tons of money, and cover it all up?

Why did government force BP to pay $20 Billion?

Why was the CARD Act passed, which nearly all credit card companies opposed?

Why was the ACA passed, which most of insurance companies were against?

And while you are explaining all that, could you provide me an example where the public got exactly the opposite of what it wanted?

 

[Andylusion]

Oh, by the way.... remember those Enron executives that were personal friends of GW Bush? And they were in fact personal friends. How did they end up in prison? After all, according to you Government only stands for what the corporations wanted... Enron spent millions lobbying, and their top people were close personal friends.... yet they still ended up in jail?

Now Clinton on the other hand, helped Enron, and gave presidential pardons to friends who committed crimes.

Maybe.... crazy thought here.... maybe it's the quality of the person you vote for, that determines if corporations have undo influence?

 

[Onyx]

Well, if that was true, then why didn't government bail out Enron? Enron spent hundreds of millions on lobbying government.

Enron's stockholders bailed out before the company could be bailed out.

The government will spend money saving a dying corporaation, but Enron was dead. There are politics involved with corporate bailouts, and it isn't like every corporation is going to get its way.

I guarantee you Enron's competition was lobbying the government not to bailout Enron, which should go without saying.

did government force BP to pay $20 Billion?

Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco had more money behind them, and British Petroleum lost face.

It is an easy decision.

Why was the CARD Act passed, which nearly all credit card companies opposed?

Heightened interest rates and the regulations beat down smaller credit companies.

Why was the ACA passed, which most of insurance companies were against?

Seriously?

The PPACA is the best example of corporate lobbying during the Obama administration. It was in fact lobbied by the biggest insurance companies to drive out smaller insurance companies, while forcing Americans by law to buy healthcare plans from them.

Know why the law failed to be repealed 54 times? The insurance companies were putting down huge sums of money to buy votes on the Republican side of the aisle, as well as financing Democrats and the Obama administration to suppress opposition.

Make no mistake, there was lobbying among Republicans to oppose the bill as well, mostly by parties you would never expect. There is always one greedy bastard that can benefit from government law, so politics come down to a bidding war.

could you provide me an example where the public got exactly the opposite of what it wanted?

Nearly every bill passed through government. Most Americans are clueless on the inner politics that goes into the creation of the established law.

It is obvious that you are living in a fools paradise.

 

[Onyx]

Oh, by the way.... remember those Enron executives that were personal friends of GW Bush?

GW Bush is a puppet with limited power, but lets not forget that George W. Bush did not own Enron. He owned Harken energy, and every company in that field would of been eager to reap the rewards of a fallen behemoth.

After all, according to you Government only stands for what the corporations wanted...

No, what I said is that the state provides for corporations. Intentionally or not.

It is the foremost institution of greed though, because everyone that runs for political office does so for selfish ambitions for power and recognition, or too profit.

Now Clinton on the other hand, helped Enron, and gave presidential pardons to friends who committed crimes.

She had nothing to lose by helping Enron.

Maybe.... crazy thought here.... maybe it's the quality of the person you vote for, that determines if corporations have undo influence?

Use some common sense. Do you really believe an individual makes a career out of politics out of pure selflessness?

You cannot tame a machine. Even if you have a hypothetically honest career politician, they are going to be stamped out since the system thrives on using violence to satiate its growth.

 

[Andylusion]

Well, if that was true, then why didn't government bail out Enron? Enron spent hundreds of millions on lobbying government.

Enron's stockholders bailed out before the company could be bailed out.

The government will spend money saving a dying corporaation, but Enron was dead. There are politics involved with corporate bailouts, and it isn't like every corporation is going to get its way.

I guarantee you Enron's competition was lobbying the government not to bailout Enron, which should go without saying.

did government force BP to pay $20 Billion?

Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco had more money behind them, and British Petroleum lost face.

It is an easy decision.

Why was the CARD Act passed, which nearly all credit card companies opposed?

Heightened interest rates and the regulations beat down smaller credit companies.

Why was the ACA passed, which most of insurance companies were against?

Seriously?

The PPACA is the best example of corporate lobbying during the Obama administration. It was in fact lobbied by the biggest insurance companies to drive out smaller insurance companies, while forcing Americans by law to buy healthcare plans from them.

Know why the law failed to be repealed 54 times? The insurance companies were putting down huge sums of money to buy votes on the Republican side of the aisle, as well as financing Democrats and the Obama administration to suppress opposition.

Make no mistake, there was lobbying among Republicans to oppose the bill as well, mostly by parties you would never expect. There is always one greedy bastard that can benefit from government law, so politics come down to a bidding war.

could you provide me an example where the public got exactly the opposite of what it wanted?

Nearly every bill passed through government. Most Americans are clueless on the inner politics that goes into the creation of the established law.

It is obvious that you are living in a fools paradise.

Enron Stockholders bailed out? That is not even possible, and easily contradicted by numerous articles about stockholders who lost everything.

Stockholders can't "bailout". They can attempt to sell their shares when they realize there is a problem. But even then the buyer of those shares, is the stockholder. It's impossible for stockholders to bailout. Unless.... the company is in the process of buying back shares of the company, which isn't likely if the company is going bankrupt.

I've been following the lobbying efforts of corporations from Exxon, to Worldcom, for over a decade. I have yet to hear of a single instance where a company would lobby the government to 'not' bailout another company.

First, lobbying isn't cheap.

Second, whether the company is bailed out, or not bailed out, they will be harmed in the process. Meaning, the companies not needing bailouts are going to grow in sales and market share, whether they are bailed out or not.

Take for example the Countrywide. Does countrywide exist anymore? No. But they were 'bailed out'. See the problem? Bear Stearns was 'bailed out'. Do they exist anymore? No.

So I would need some evidence suggesting that other companies lobby against bailouts.

Besides that, by definition there is more money from competitors. If competitors would lobby against bailouts, and that prevented them.... then we should never have a bailout ever.

Your argument does not follow. What does Royal Dutch Shell, and Aramco have to do with you claiming the oil industry has control over government, yet the government forced an oil company to pay billions?

If anything Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco, should be lobbying against the government forcing BP to pay money, because they know it could just as easily be them next.

The CARD Act was opposed by the credit card companies. Yes, it ended up being a benefit by reducing competition. I am aware of this. That does not change the fact the Credit Card companies lobbyied against this legislation.

Same is true of ObamaCare. The fact is, no matter all this other crap you bring up, they opposed the ACA. They lobbyied against the ACA.

Yes, today as things stand, they are lobbying against dismantling the law for a very simple and obvious reason.... that they themselves have made clear... what they don't want to is to have the mandate removed, while the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, and so on.

Of course they are lobbying to keep the mandate, now that it's in place.

None of that changes the fact that they OPPOSED THE LAW TO START WITH. It is a fact that the insurance companies lobbied hard against the ACA.

How do you explain that?

 

[Andylusion]

Use some common sense. Do you really believe an individual makes a career out of politics out of pure selflessness?

Actually, you are making my point. I would never vote for a career politician. The founding fathers were generally against career politicians. That's why only wealthy land (business) owners were supposed to vote.

The worst thing, in my opinion, is a politicians that has never worked an honest days work in his life, where he actually earned money in the open free market.

On this basis alone, I would prefer Dick Cheney over any Clinton. Clinton has never worked a day in her life. She has been a blood sucking tick on the butt of American since she was born.

I'd take any business man over that.

 

[Onyx]

Enron Stockholders bailed out? That is not even possible, and easily contradicted by numerous articles about stockholders who lost everything.

Bailed out, IE, they aborted ship.

I've been following the lobbying efforts of corporations from Exxon, to Worldcom, for over a decade. I have yet to hear of a single instance where a company would lobby the government to 'not' bailout another company.

First off, lobbying is neither transparent nor honest.

Do you honestly believe a company would not put money down to ensure their competition dies?

First, lobbying isn't cheap.

Actually it can be.

100,000 can be a large sum for a politician, but a small sum for a mega corporation.

Take for example the Countrywide. Does countrywide exist anymore? No. But they were 'bailed out'. See the problem? Bear Stearns was 'bailed out'. Do they exist anymore? No.

Exactly.

There is no desire to bail out a company that is already dead, as I have already brought up.

Besides that, by definition there is more money from competitors. If competitors would lobby against bailouts, and that prevented them.... then we should never have a bailout ever.

False.

The whole political process is more complicated than more money = victory.

You should be analyzing how many companies do not get bailouts. The protected conglomerate includes banks and mega corporations.

What does Royal Dutch Shell, and Aramco have to do with you claiming the oil industry has control over government, yet the government forced an oil company to pay billions?

Individuals in government have affiliations with Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco. That is why companies like British petroleum can get screwed over.

If anything Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco, should be lobbying against the government forcing BP to pay money, because they know it could just as easily be them next.

Bad logic.

Precedent counts for nothing in the framework of the state, which goes back to your naivety on the integrity of government.

If the option is letting British Petroleum be dealt a serious blow, or risk establishing a worthless precedent, I would say that is an easy choice.

The CARD Act was opposed by the credit card companies. Yes, it ended up being a benefit by reducing competition. I am aware of this. That does not change the fact the Credit Card companies lobbyied against this legislation.

And you believe that it was one sided?

There are always two parties of lobbyists in every political debate.

Same is true of ObamaCare. The fact is, no matter all this other crap you bring up, they opposed the ACA. They lobbyied against the ACA.

No, not all insurance companies were opposed to the PPACA,

Many were, but these companies in opposition were the very ones that got wrecked by the larger insurance companies after the PPACA went into effect.

There were other lobbying groups besides insurance too.

 

[Onyx]

Actually, you are making my point. I would never vote for a career politician. The founding fathers were generally against career politicians. That's why only wealthy land (business) owners were supposed to vote.

All politicians are career politicians.

No politician dedicates many years of their life primarily out of a selfless and kind heart.

Remember that next time you praise the power of the constitutional republic.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, you are making my point. I would never vote for a career politician. The founding fathers were generally against career politicians. That's why only wealthy land (business) owners were supposed to vote.

All politicians are career politicians.

No politician dedicates many years of their life primarily out of a selfless and kind heart.

Remember that next time you praise the power of the constitutional republic.

I would deny that. I can think of numerous people who didn't make a career out of politics.

In fact, Al Gore said this during the ballot fight of 2000. Al Gore is reported to have told his own people, that if Bush loses, he'll just go back to his ranch and his companies, and live a peaceful life, but that he himself had no backup. This was his life, was running for political office. That's why he fought so bitterly to force a change in the outcome.

So I am not convinced that every single politician is a career politician. Even they themselves admit some have a full life outside of politics. Bush was famous for telling people who visited the White house, that it was a politics free zone. People who came over to visit, were supposed to 'visit', and not discuss political matters.

 

[Andylusion]

Enron Stockholders bailed out? That is not even possible, and easily contradicted by numerous articles about stockholders who lost everything.

Bailed out, IE, they aborted ship.

I've been following the lobbying efforts of corporations from Exxon, to Worldcom, for over a decade. I have yet to hear of a single instance where a company would lobby the government to 'not' bailout another company.

First off, lobbying is neither transparent nor honest.

Do you honestly believe a company would not put money down to ensure their competition dies?

First, lobbying isn't cheap.

Actually it can be.

100,000 can be a large sum for a politician, but a small sum for a mega corporation.

Take for example the Countrywide. Does countrywide exist anymore? No. But they were 'bailed out'. See the problem? Bear Stearns was 'bailed out'. Do they exist anymore? No.

Exactly.

There is no desire to bail out a company that is already dead, as I have already brought up.

Besides that, by definition there is more money from competitors. If competitors would lobby against bailouts, and that prevented them.... then we should never have a bailout ever.

False.

The whole political process is more complicated than more money = victory.

You should be analyzing how many companies do not get bailouts. The protected conglomerate includes banks and mega corporations.

What does Royal Dutch Shell, and Aramco have to do with you claiming the oil industry has control over government, yet the government forced an oil company to pay billions?

Individuals in government have affiliations with Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco. That is why companies like British petroleum can get screwed over.

If anything Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco, should be lobbying against the government forcing BP to pay money, because they know it could just as easily be them next.

Bad logic.

Precedent counts for nothing in the framework of the state, which goes back to your naivety on the integrity of government.

If the option is letting British Petroleum be dealt a serious blow, or risk establishing a worthless precedent, I would say that is an easy choice.

The CARD Act was opposed by the credit card companies. Yes, it ended up being a benefit by reducing competition. I am aware of this. That does not change the fact the Credit Card companies lobbyied against this legislation.

And you believe that it was one sided?

There are always two parties of lobbyists in every political debate.

Same is true of ObamaCare. The fact is, no matter all this other crap you bring up, they opposed the ACA. They lobbyied against the ACA.

No, not all insurance companies were opposed to the PPACA,

Many were, but these companies in opposition were the very ones that got wrecked by the larger insurance companies after the PPACA went into effect.

There were other lobbying groups besides insurance too.

Your responses make no sense.

You should be analyzing how many companies do not get bailouts. The protected conglomerate includes banks and mega corporations.

First you said that the reason Enron was not bailed out, is because the other companies lobbied against the Enron bailout. Now you are suggested the opposite. If I was any of the large banks, I would want CitiGroup to not get a bailout.... For certain they all would benefit from Citigroup leaving the market. Yet now you are claiming otherwise?

Which is it? It can't be both. Either companies prevent bailouts of their competition, or they don't. It can't be both, or whatever answer best fits whatever example I bring up.

There is no desire to bail out a company that is already dead, as I have already brought up.

But Countrywide wasn't dead at the time. And they did get a bailout. Now they are dead.

Which is it? Do the big companies own the government, and lobby to prevent themselves being eliminated? If so, where is Countrywide? Or does government not bailout companies that are already bankrupt? In which case, why did Countrywide get a bailout?

It can't be both. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. No matter what clearly contradictory evidence I bring up to your claim, you try and say it prove you are right. But you can't look at two contradictory facts, and claim they are both supportive of your position. So which is it?